Sitting of 29 October 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North British Railway Order Confirmation Bill—"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the North British Railway," presented by Mr. Sinclair; read the
Their Lordships divide:—Contents, 48; Not-contents, 28.
first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Friday 6th November, and to be printed. [Bill 364.]

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M.).
  Mr. LUKE WHITEreported from the Committee on Group M. of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the London and District Electricity Supply Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. John Hall Rider, Electrical Engineer to the London County Council, of the County Hall, Spring Gardens, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that Mr. Rider's attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. John Hall Rider do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock.
  Ordered, that Mr. John Hall Rider do attend the Committee on Group M. of Private Bills To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock.

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Chatham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Brighton; Edinburgh (two); Gerlan; London and Market Drayton; South Cave; and Taunton; to lie upon the Table.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1908.
  Petition from Carlisle, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Brixton and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 581 (Mauritius, Annual Report for 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Hobhouse Report—Deferment of Stripes.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether immediate effect will be given to Paragraph 357 of the Hobhouse Report concerning the deferment of stripes.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The revision of the Regulations regarding good conduct stripes has required very careful consideration, and I have been in communication with the Postmen's Federation on the subject. I am now on the point of issuing the revised rules, which will follow the lines indicated in the Report of the Select Committee.

  Public-House Licences in Ireland.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present number of public-house licences in Ireland, and how many of them are attached to promises of under £10 valuation and are thereby entitled to
  454
  pay a licence duty of £4 10s. for a full licence and £3 17s. 1d. for a six-day licence; whether he is aware that in the country districts and smaller towns the valuation is often less than £1; and, except in Belfast, under recent revaluation, has the value of the licence and trade goodwill ever been taken into account in arriving at the letting value.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The number of public-house licences issued in Ireland in the year ended 31st March last, was 17,393, of which 7,190 were attached to premises of under £10 valuation. Of these, 6,149 were in respect of full licences at £4 10s., 900 in respect of six-day or early closing licences at £3 17s. 1d., and the remaining 141 in respect of six-day and early closing. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Clerks to Justices and Professional Work.
  MR. LEVY LEVER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it sometimes happens that the clerk to a bench of county justices is concerned professionally in cases in which the said bench is called upon to adjudicate; and whether, having regard to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice in such circumstances, he will introduce legislation to put an end to such a system.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am not aware of any such cases having occurred as would make legislation on the subject desirable. It is, I believe, generally recognised that where justices have to adjudicate between two parties, their clerk is under a stringent obligation not to act professionally for either side; but, if the hon. Member will let me know of any instances to the contrary that may have come to his knowledge, I will have inquiry made.

  Crime in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will compare the number of crimes throughout Ireland classified as agrarian and non-agrarian, respectively, under each of the headings firing at the person and firing into dwellings, for the years 1878 to 1907,

  455
  inclusive, and the period of nine months ended 30th September, 1908.

  Period.

  Firing at the Person.

  Firing into Dwellings.

  Agrarian.

  Not agrarian.

  Agrarian.

  Not agrarian.

  Year 1878

  -

  -

  -

  3

  12

  7

  8

  Year 1879

  -

  -

  -

  8

  33

  13

  9

  Year 1880

  -

  -

  -

  24

  46

  64

  31

  Year 1881

  -

  -

  -

  66

  38

  144

  24

  Year 1882

  -

  -

  -

  58

  47

  117

  34

  Year 1883

  -

  -

  -

  9

  19

  19

  9

  Year 1884

  -

  -

  -

  7

  15

  18

  4

  Year 1885

  -

  -

  -

  12

  23

  33

  14

  Year 1886

  -

  -

  -

  16

  47

  43

  29

  Year 1887

  -

  -

  -

  19

  39

  35

  27

  Year 1888

  -

  -

  -

  14

  25

  30

  34

  Year 1889

  -

  -

  -

  11

  16

  29

  19

  Year 1890

  -

  -

  -

  15

  15

  30

  25

  Year 1891

  -

  -

  -

  8

  13

  16

  17

  Year 1892

  -

  -

  -

  7

  15

  6

  15

  Year 1893

  -

  -

  -

  7

  23

  13

  18

  Year 1894

  -

  -

  -

  3

  14

  7

  13

  Year 1895

  -

  -

  -

  4

  20

  15

  11

  Year 1896

  -

  -

  -

  6

  10

  5

  7

  Year 1897

  -

  -

  -

  3

  10

  7

  5

  Year 1898

  -

  -

  -

  3

  11

  5

  8

  Year 1899

  -

  -

  -

  3

  17

  7

  8

  Year 1900

  -

  -

  -

  3

  9

  10

  2

  Year 1901

  -

  -

  -

  1

  11

  3

  5

  Year 1902

  -

  -

  -

  2

  17

  4

  4

  Year 1903

  -

  -

  -

  1

  17

  6

  5

  Year 1904

  -

  -

  -

  1

  9

  12

  11

  Year 1905

  -

  -

  -

  2

  9

  9

  9

  Year 1906

  -

  -

  -

  3

  16

  9

  11

  Year 1907

  -

  -

  -

  9

  18

  40

  20

  1st January to 30th September, 1908

  -

  -

  10

  22

  55

  19

  Revenue from On-Licence Duties.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department the amount at present received in licence duty from the existing on-licences; how much it is estimated these same on-licences would pay as licence duty under Schedule A. when the valuation under Schedule A. is conducted upon the revised basis expected to arise under the Licensing Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The net receipt of duty from existing on-licences in the United Kingdom
  456
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The required figures are as follows—
  in the year ended 31st March, last was £1,834,892; exclusive of Scotland and Ireland the figure is £1,555,237. It is impossible to make any accurate forecast such as is asked for in the second part of the Question.

  Position of Clerk to Yeovil Education Committee.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the clerk to the Yeovil Education Committee is also town clerk, clerk to the borough magistrates, joint clerk to the county magistrates, registrar of the county court, clerk to the joint

  457
  burial board, clerk to the Free School Charity, and a solicitor in private practice; that he never attends the meetings of the Education Committee; and whether such an appointment is sanctioned by the Board of Education.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) No, Sir. The appointment of clerk to an education committee does not require the sanction of the Board.

  Valuation of Belfast Licensed Premises.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in Ireland, except the City of Belfast under a recent revaluation, the value of the licence has never been taken into account in the valuation of licensed premises; that a number of public-houses are therefore inadequately valued and pay licence duty on a very low scale, particularly in country places, and will he consider the advisability of materially increasing the licence duty, especially on premises valued under £10, as a means of reducing the number of low class public-houses; and is he aware that a large proportion of Irish licensed houses are valued under £10 and so only pay £4 10s. per annum for a full seven-days on-licence, or £3 17s. 1d. for a six-days on-licence.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The matter to which the hon. Member draws my attention will not fail to receive my careful consideration at the proper time.

  Subsidy to Inter-Parliamentary Union.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what grounds a subsidy of £300 a year is to be given to a political body called the Inter-Parliamentary Union; when will the first payment be made; and whether he can state if any similar subsidies are contemplated for other political organisations.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Two years ago the House voted a sum of £5,000 for expenses in connection with the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in London. The union is an entirely non-party organisation, including hon. Members who sit upon both sides of this House. The Government have undertaken
  458
  on the same grounds to propose to Parliament an annual grant of £300 in aid of the expenses of the permanent organisation of the union when it has been satisfactorily established. I have not yet received particulars of the arrangements proposed, and am therefore unable to say when a payment is likely to be required. I am not aware of any other organisation having the same claims.

  Savings Bank Depositors and Colonial Securities.
  MR. BECK: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, bearing in mind the need of further encouraging thrift during periods of national prosperity, he will consider the advisability of arranging for facilities being given for the purchase of small quantities of approved Colonial securities, thus giving to the working class investor an opportunity of obtaining a reasonably remunerative rate of interest upon his capital.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I do not think it would be advisable for the Government to take such action in regard to securities for which the Government is not responsible.

  Bonus under Clause 48, Irish Land Act.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to the future percentage of bonus payable under Clause 48 of the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The matter is under consideration.

  Old-Age Pensions—Poor Rates Remitted.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if a man who, on account of poverty, has had his poor rate remitted is thereby disqualified for an old-age pension.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Perhaps I may answer this Question. The excusal of the payment of rates on the ground of poverty, would not, I think, disqualify the person excused for receiving an old-age pension.

  Soldiers' Widows and Pension.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the widow of a private soldier, who had not applied during his lifetime for a pension to which he was entitled, is permitted to claim and receive such pension after her husband's death as from the date at which he became entitled to it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply is in the negative; but if the hon. Member has any particular case in view I shall be glad to consider it as a special case.

  Army Pensions and Good Conduct Pay.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether private soldiers enlisted on or before 1st September, 1864, and discharged by reduction of establishment or invalided, having, by uninterrupted possession of good conduct pay with one or more good conduct badges for six months immediately preceding discharge, become entitled to full rate of good conduct pay added to pension, whether temporary or permanent, to which they were otherwise entitled on attaining fifty years of age, are paid the pension in full from the date of their attaining fifty years of age, notwithstanding any delay that may have occurred in the making of official application for it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member is alluding to awards of deferred pension on reaching the age of fifty years after fulfilling the conditions stated in the Question. A soldier is directed in his small book to apply to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital when he becomes eligible for the award. If he neglects to make this application at the proper time he is only eligible to recover arrears thereof up to a maximum of three years.

  Yeomanry Arms.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the bayonets with which the Yeomanry have been armed have been called in; and whether, under these circumstances, the Yeomanry will be re-armed with sabres.
  460
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The bayonets with which the Yeomanry are armed will shortly be called in. The question whether the Yeomanry will be re-armed with sabres is under consideration.

  Reservists in the Colonies.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the conditions under which men belonging to the Army Reserve have been authorised to reside in the Colonies; and what arrangements have been made for recalling them to the colours in case of sudden emergency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Question, the conditions are contained in Paragraphs 57 to 62 of the Army Reserve Regulations. As regards the second part of the Question, the arrangements are set forth in Paragraphs 146 to 148 of the Mobilisation Regulations.

  Overtime in War Office Employment.
  MR. W. THORNE: To ask the Secretary of State for War can he state the number of men that would be required under his control if the hours of those men who were working more than eight per day were reduced to eight per day.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My hon. friend is presumably referring to the various factories and departments under the control of the War Office. No overtime is worked in them, except in cases of emergency, as when stores have to be hastened and completed for issue at an earlier date than that originally anticipated, and in the case of men whose work necessitates their attendance before and after the usual hours, such as engine-drivers and stokers, warders, timekeepers, etc. In all these cases it would be quite impracticable to put on extra hands.

  Small Holdings in West Suffolk.
  MR. HEATON-ARMSTRONG: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that in the county of West Suffolk six months ago 240 applications were sent in for 3,000 acres of land, but

  461
  up to the present time nothing has been done by the county council to meet these demands; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to compel this county council to carry out its obligations under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are aware that no land has as yet been actually acquired for small holdings in West Suffolk, but the county council have not been idle. Every applicant has been interviewed by subcommittees, valuers have been employed to advise on suitable land, the county council are now negotiating for the acquisition of several properties in different parts of the county, and we hope to receive several schemes from them in the near future.

  Small Holdings in Gloucestershire.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state how many of the applications for small holdings which have been approved by the County Council of Gloucestershire were from bona fide agricultural labourers; and to how many such applicants have small holdings been granted.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Eighty-two, nine of whom have been supplied with small holdings. There are, I may add, other approved applicants who are engaged as agricultural labourers at certain periods of the year.

  Butchers Meat Guarantees.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the butchers have demanded a warranty after the 2nd of next month from British farmers as to the freedom from tubercular disease of all cattle sold by them, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to require butchers after the same date to give a guarantee
  462
  that all beef sold by them as British shall be home-grown and home-fed.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The President of the Board of Agriculture does not propose to introduce legislation in the direction suggested.

  Small Holdings Act.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any county councils have omitted to appoint a small holdings and allotments committee under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908; and, if so, which council or councils are so in default.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No, Sir.

  Russian Agents in Persia.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Russian agents in Persia have actively interfered in the struggle between the Shah of Persia and the national party in that country, and have materially contributed to the destruction of the Persian Parliament and constitution; and whether His Majesty's Government have addressed any representations to the Russian Government on this matter.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I am not aware that Russian agents have actively interfered in the struggle in Persia, though the representatives of both the British and Russian Governments have from time to time given advice to the Shah. The Russian officers who took part in the fighting at Teheran in the summer were in the service of the Shah, and were not acting as agents of the Russian Government. The exigencies of the situation have occasionally forced both British and Russian Consuls or Vice-Consuls, as at Tabriz recently, to enter into communications with one political party or the other; but the policy of both Governments has been to limit this as much as possible. It must be remembered

  463
  that the prolonged disturbance in a province on the Russian frontier has caused great loss to Russian trade; at one time there was also some danger to Russian lives and property; and the British Vice-Consul informs me that the Customs, in which Russia has a special interest, have not been collected for five months. The only step, however, hitherto taken by the Russian Government has been to place 400 men on their own frontier, as a precautionary measure. None of these men have so far been allowed to cross into Persian territory; and I see no occasion to make any representations, for I do not suppose that any British Government would have acted differently under the circumstances.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Edward McDermott.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Edward McDermott to be reinstated in a holding in lieu of his farm on Lady Hegate's estate, County Donegal, from which he was evicted; whether he is aware that his name was placed on the list of persons entitled to a farm; and if he can state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Edward McDermott, and it has been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land for the purchase of which the Commissioners are in negotiation.

  Indian Railways.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the case of railways in India worked by companies there has been an increase in the pay and emoluments of the revenue branch of the service consequent on their growth and expanded traffic, especially in the case of the heads of the traffic, engineering, and locomotive departments, whereas on the State railways, even in a system so extensive as the Northwestern Railway, the rates of pay of the chief traffic and locomotive officers
  464
  remain on the same scale as when the railways were first started, although the pay of all railways in the engineering department has lately been improved; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists, and the Government of India has been approached on the subject by the officers affected; and whether he has received any representations upon the subject from that Government or from the railway board.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The answer to these Questions is in the affirmative. Proposals on the subject are at present under my consideration.

  St. Lucia.
  MR. MICKLEM: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colony of St. Lucia is the only West Indian Colony in which the subjects of the Crown have no legal remedy in respect of claims against the Government; whether instructions have been given by the Colonial Office to the Acting Governor of St. Lucia not to proceed with a Bill intended to extend to that Colony the provisions of the Petitions of Right Act, 1860; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of withdrawing such instructions and of promoting a Bill to give the same rights to British subjects in St. Lucia as are enjoyed in the other West Indian Colonies.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The Secretary of State has already formed the opinion that a Crown Suits Ordinance should be proceeded with in St. Lucia, giving the inhabitants of that Colony in future a right of suing the Crown analogous to that possesed under the common law by subjects in this country and regulated by the Petitions of Right Act, 1860; and he is now in correspondence on the subject with the Governor of the Windward Islands who is, at present, on leave in this country.

  Post Office Contracts.
  MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what was the measure in money of the contracts placed in 1907 for waterproofs, boots, bicycles, and tools for the

  465
  use of his Department, and how much of that sum was placed with firms having their premises in Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The figures are as follows: Waterproofs, £13,950; boots, £14,595; cycles and parts, £27,656; tools, £3,985. No tenders were received from, and consequently no orders were placed with, firms in Wales. As I told the hon. Member on 27th July, I should be very glad to receive tenders from Wales. Apart from the contracts about £11,600 was spent locally for repair and hire of cycles, and rather more than £600 of this went to Wales.

  Reply Coupons for Foreign Letters.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it was agreed at the Postal Union Conference at Rome to supply reply coupons available for correspondents who wish to get replies to their letters from any place abroad; whether the cost of these coupons is fixed at 3d. each; whether, as the postal rate to the United States of America has been reduced from 2½d. to 1d., the price of a reply coupon to that country remains unaltered at 3d.; whether he will institute a system of exchange penny postal stamps with every part of the British Empire and the United States of America, so that a correspondent who wants a reply to his letter may be able to send a British stamp that can be exchanged at any Post Office in the Empire or the United States of America for a stamp similar of value, the accounts to be adjusted half-yearly, or more often, if necessary, by the Governments.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Under the system adopted at the Postal Union Congress at Rome, a reply coupon can be bought at any Post Office in this country for 3d. and exchanged for stamps to the value of 2½d. in almost any country, thus affording a convenient means of prepaying the reply to a letter or transmitting a very small sum of money. Contrary to expectation the demand for these coupons has so far been very small; and unless the demand increases, as the system becomes better known, I do not consider that there is sufficient reason for
  466
  creating a coupon of lower value, for which there is less necessity, and for which, therefore, there would probably be even less demand.

  Post Office Retirement Regulations.
  MR. KELLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that instructions were issued to surveyors by a previous Postmaster-General stating that retirement at sixty years of age should be enforced upon all Post Office officials in order to assist promotion and secure efficiency; whether he is aware that a superintending official of telegraphs at Manchester has been permitted to remain after this age; and whether he will state what reasons exist for this special treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The circular to surveyors, to which the hon. Member refers, did not make retirement at sixty years of age compulsory. Under the Orders in Council retirement is not compulsory until the age of sixty-five is reached. As I informed the hon. Member in answer to a Question on 15th May last, the rule is that all pensionable officers of whatever grade, whose conduct, capacity, or efficiency falls below a fair standard, are called upon to retire at sixty years of age; but retirement at sixty is not necessarily enforced in the case of officers whose conduct is good, and who are certified by their superior officers to be thoroughly efficient. There has been no exceptional treatment in the case of the supervising officer at Manchester to whom reference is made.

  Bushey Park.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that, when a labourer at Bushey Park is performing acting gatekeeper's duties, twenty-five hours per week are added to the time he is employed in his usual occupation; and, if so, whether he can see his way to allow a labourer whilst performing these duties a reasonable amount of extra remuneration.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) At present a labourer performing acting gatekeeper's duties receives 4s. 8d. per week extra remuneration for twenty-five

  467
  hours additional on-duty. I am prepared to recommend that in future a labourer shall receive 7s. per week extra remuneration for this duty.

  Haslar Naval Hospital.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under the will of the late Mrs. Waldo-Sibthorpe, a sum of £6,000 was bequeathed upon trust for the Naval Hospital at Haslar, in memory of her husband, Commander George H. R. Erroll; and whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have come to any decision as to the best manner in which this legacy will be expended on the Haslar Hospital.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The matter referred to in the second part is still under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty.

  Sasine Office, Edinburgh.
  MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the engrossing clerks in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, engaged in the work of registering titles and other deeds relating to heritable property in Scotland, have during the process of registration valuable documents in their possession, and that their tenure of service is regarded as temporary; whether the claim of those clerks, embodied in a Memorial of July, 1905, to the then Secretary for Scotland, to be recognised as civil servants has been considered; and whether, in view of the character of their duties, it is intended to make any change in their status.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am aware of the conditions under which the engrossing clerks in the Sasines Office perform their duties. The claims of the engrossers for admission to the established Civil Service have been considered, and I am unable to recommend that their status as fixed by existing Minutes should be altered.

  Fraudulent Traders at Dundee.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a communication
  468
  from the editor of the Scottish Prohibitionist, drawing his attention to the constantly recurring cases in Dundee of merchants defrauding the public by the use of false and unjust weights and measures, and to the fact that the Press does not give publicty to the convictions obtained by the authorities against such merchants; and whether steps will be taken, for the protection of the public, to ensure that the reports of such convictions would be duly published.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The communication referred to in this Question has been sent to me by the Secretary of State. I have no control as to the action of the Press and do not see my way to interfere.

  Motor Cab Calls.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the nuisance caused, particularly in quiet professional neighbourhoods, by such street noises as the whistling for motor cabs; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to remedy this grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am aware that the whistling for motor and other cabs is in some districts a considerable nuisance, but, on the other hand, the system is a convenience to the public. The police have no power to stop the whistling, but the Commissioner is considering whether any change can be suggested which will mitigate the annoyance.

  Coasting Trade.
  MR. MALLET: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state which countries admit British vessels to their coasting trade proper and to the trade between themselves and their possessions respectively; which countries exclude British ships altogether from their coasting trade; and what is the tonnage of British vessels allowed to participate in the coasting trade of each of these countries as aforesaid.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) My hon. friend will find information on all these

  469
  points in Memorandum No. XXV. in the published Papers laid before the Colonial Conference, 1907 [Cd. 3524]. For his convenience I have directed that copies shall be sent him.

  Hop Imports.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the total imports of hops into this country in each

  Statement showing the quantity of Hops imported into the United Kingdom during each month, from October, 1907, to September, 1908, inclusive, distinguishing the quantities consigned from Germany, the United States, Belgium, and Austria-Hungary, respectively; together with the quantity of imported hops re-exported to foreign countries and British Possessions during the same months.

  Month.

  Total quantities imported.

  Imports consigned from.

  Total quantity of imported hops re-exported.

  Germany.

  United States.

  Belgium.

  Austria-Hungary.

  Other Countries.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  1907:

  October

  -

  24,290

  13,426

  3,082

  4,738

  1,421

  1,623

  361

  November

  -

  29,065

  16,041

  9,961

  1,699

  615

  749

  2,213

  December

  -

  19,625

  8,576

  8,669

  1,559

  206

  615

  2,142

  1908:

  January

  -

  34,980

  5,543

  28,283

  903

  52

  199

  2,093

  February

  -

  24,978

  6,528

  17,460

  483

  —

  507

  2,879

  March

  -

  33,279

  3,139

  29,407

  487

  185

  61

  2,115

  April

  -

  -

  57,521

  1,682

  54,312

  61

  —

  1,466

  470

  May

  -

  -

  9,815

  3,042

  5,280

  605

  —

  888

  547

  June

  -

  -

  9,577

  1,116

  5,955

  70

  —

  2,436

  337

  July

  -

  -

  4,779

  725

  3,481

  227

  —

  346

  30

  August

  -

  4,018

  638

  2,930

  127

  —

  323

  221

  September

  -

  3,822

  3,139

  270

  313

  —

  100

  61

  Total

  -

  255,749

  63,595

  169,090

  11,272

  2,479

  9,313

  13,469

  month since October 1907; what have been the amounts in each month received from the chief importing countries, namely, Germany, the United States, Belgium, and Austria; and what amounts of imported hops have been re-exported to any foreign country during these months.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following statement gives the information desired by the hon. Member.

  Crown Sporting Rights Leases.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any Crown leases of sporting rights include the right to erect butts upon common land, involving the destruction of turf and diminution of feed, and include the right to burn gorse and heather; and whether he will arrange that copies of all Crown leases of sporting rights in any county shall be deposited at the office of the county council for inspection by any person interested on payment of a reasonable fee.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The right of sporting granted in Crown leases over Crown waste lands which are subject to common rights of grazing is concurrent with and without prejudice to those rights of grazing, and may be exercised in any way that does not appreciably interfere with them. Any person who has any claim to exercise such common rights over any Crown waste will, on application to the Commissioners of Woods, be informed as to how his rights are affected by any lease of sporting that has been granted; but the Commissioners do not see their way to adopt the suggestion that all such leases should be deposited for inspection at the offices of the county council.

  Courtenay Almshouses, Tavistock.
  MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Royal Commissioners, 1907, on the Courtenay Almshouses in Tavistock; and whether the Earl of Devon is responsible for the continuance of this charity.
  (Answered by Mr. Soares.) I am not aware of any Report having been made by Royal Commissioners in 1907 on this charity, but in the Report made to the Charity Commissioners comprised in a Return to an Order of the House of Commons and ordered to be printed 1st August, 1907, it is stated that Lord Courtenay's Almshouse appears to be a private almshouse, the property of the Earl of Devon, who chooses the inmates and maintains and controls the house.
  472
  Of course, if there is any fresh evidence in the matter the Charity Commissioners would be willing to consider it.

  Suitors' Fund.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the amount of the Suitors Fund at the present moment, and state whether it is put to any public use.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The cash liability of the Paymaster-General to suitors in the Supreme Court of Judicature, England, amounted on 30th September, 1908, to £2,380,216 7s. 9d. To the extent of £1,932,134 15s. 6d. this liability is not represented by cash in the Paymaster's hands, but by a contingent claim upon the Consolidated Fund. This claim arises from the fact that in 1870 (under the Act 32 and 33 Vic, c. 91) Government securities in which funds in Court had been invested were cancelled. This operation effected a reduction in the amount of the National Debt, and a corresponding liability was imposed on the Consolidated Fund. The original liability was £2,764,744 1s. 10d., which has since been reduced to £1,932,134 15s. 6d. The remainder of the Paymaster's liability to suitors was represented on 30th September last by: (1) Cash to the amount of £377,992, lodged with the National Debt Commissioners and employed by them to earn income for the purpose of paying the interest due to suitors in respect of moneys placed on the deposit; and (2) by a working balance of £70,090.

  Territorial Force—Officers for Training Units.
  MR. BERTRAM: To ask the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the scheme for junior and senior officers training units for the Territorial Force; and when a scheme will be approved for the Inns of Court battalion.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Offers to furnish contingents have been accepted in respect of eight Universities and 103 schools, and contingents of varying strength have actually been formed at these places. Other offers

  473
  are under consideration or in process of acceptance, and the organisation and training of the corps is being developed as rapidly as possible. As regards the Inns of Court, the scheme for the re-constitution of the battalion as a training unit is now being dealt with.

  Unemployment.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to consider the desirability of appointing a Committee, to consist partly of representatives of Government Departments and partly of outside experts, to suggest to the Central (Unemployed) Body and local distress committees schemes of work which, while not competing with existing industries, shall afford employment during the next few months to those whose names are placed on the registers of unemployed seeking work.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I cannot help thinking that the Central (Unemployed) Body and distress committees, co-operating as they are with the local authorities and acting in consultation with, their expert officers, are better able to find practicable schemes of work than would such a committee as my hon. friend suggests. I have no doubt that they would willingly consider any practical proposal that was put before them from any quarter.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Wrecks on the Devon Coast.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the totally unwatched condition of the north coast of Devon and to the two wrecks that occurred there recently without being observed or assisted by the coastguard; and, if so, what steps, if any, he proposes to take to provide for the more efficient watching of this part of the coast.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple): Before that Question is answered may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that an inquiry is to be held at Barnstaple on 20th November next which will embrace the question of the
  474
  efficiency of the coastguard in the neighbourhood?
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA, Camberwell, N.): The circumstances in which the two wrecks occurred are, it is understood, being considered by the Board of Trade. Although the coastguard co-operate as far as their duties permit in rendering assistance in cases of shipwreck, it is not part of their regular duty to patrol the coast for the purpose of watching for casualties, as will be evident from a perusal of the Blue-book (Command Number 4091) presented to Parliament this year.
  MR. FELL: May I ask if in this duty of patrolling the coast these coastguards do not render very efficient service in finding wrecks of this kind, and would it not be better if more men should not be dismissed?
  *DR. MACNAMARA: I have said it is not part of the regular duty of these men to patrol the coast for the purpose of watching for casualties.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: In view of this reduction of coastguards may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is no harbour of refuge on that side of the Bristol Channel between Land's End and Bristol, and whether he will give his early consideration to the provision of a harbour of refuge?
  *DR. MACNAMARA: That is a Question which should, I think, be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

  Devon Coastguard Service.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if any coastguards have been reduced from the service on the north coast of Devon during the past two years, and whether any have been or are to be reduced during the present year either on this coast or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  *DR. MACNAMARA: The only coastguard station closed on the north coast of Devon during the past two years is Morthoe, with two men, which was closed on the 25th March, 1907. As

  475
  stated in the House by the late Financial Secretary, certain reductions in the coastguards are necessary, as there is a redundance both of men and stations—and these are being gradually carried out, thirty-three stations and detachments having been closed during the present year.
  MR. FELL: Is not Morthoe situated in the very bay in which these wrecks occurred. Will he reconsider the point if it is redundant?
  *DR. MACNAMARA: That matter is being inquired into by the Board of Trade.
  MR. GRETTONasked to what extent the number of the coastguard had been reduced?
  *DR. MACNAMARAasked for notice.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the life-saving arrangements on the north coast of Devon have been maintained, as promised, in fully as efficient a condition as they were before the reductions in the coastguard took place.
  *DR. MACNAMARA: The Board of Trade is the Department responsible for life-saving arrangements, and this Question would appear to be one for that Department.
  MR. FELL: May I ask whether in the discussions which arose on the Secretary of the Board of Admiralty's salary it was not promised that the efficiency of the life-saving apparatus would not be affected by the closing of any of the coastguard stations, and are not the Board of Admiralty responsible, therefore, in some degree?
  *DR. MACNAMARA: Yes; but the Financial Secretary pointed out that there would be certain stations closed because of redundancy. The whole question of carrying on the life-saving appliances, which we do not desire to be reduced in any way whatever, is now under consideration by both Departments, including the Board of Trade, whoso particular function I am advised it is.
  MR. FORSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman postpone the
  476
  further reduction of coastguard stations until the Life-saving Appliances Committee have reported?
  DR. MACNAMARAasked for notice of the Question.

  Expenses of W.O. Raven.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty in view of the fact that on the 24th instant a member of the Rugby football team which represented London against the Australians on that date was conveyed to Portsmouth at public expense on board a torpedo boat specially detached for the purpose, whether he will refund to the National Rifle Association the sum paid to the Admiralty in respect of the journey from Malta of W. O. Raven to join the rifle shooting team which recently represented the mother country in the Colonies.
  DR. MACNAMARA: There is no official knowledge of the incident referred to. No reason is seen for reopening the question as to the payment of the expenses of Mr. Raven's journey to the Colonies.

  Overtime in Dockyards.
  MR. W. THORNEI beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty can he state the number of men that would be required under his control if the hours of those men who were working more than eight per day were reduced to eight per day.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The hours worked in excess of forty-eight hours a week per man during the current financial year are equivalent to the ordinary working hours of an average total of 380 men in the six home dockyards, but such employment in excess of forty-eight hours a week could not be avoided by entering additional men. It may be observed that the total number of men at present employed in the home dockyards is 31,438, so that the time worked in excess of forty-eight hours a week represents slightly over one per cent. on the ordinary working hours.

  Mahomedans on Bombay Municipal Councils.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State

  477
  for India whether the Government of Bombay declined to introduce the principle of communal representation of Mahomedans upon municipal councils; and whether, if the answer be in the affirmative, the rejection of this principle is consistent with its introduction into the reforms now under consideration by the Secretary of State in Council.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): The Resolution of the Government of Bombay of July last is mainly to the effect that on account of the way in which the Mahomedan population is locally distributed in that part of India, its just representation on municipal committees could be better secured by other expedients than that of communal representation. The latter part of the Question is matter for argument, and the Secretary of State does not propose to discuss it.

  Deputy Superintendents of Indian Police.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in conformance with the recommendation of the recent Police Commission, a now grade of deputy superintendent of police was created; and whether European inspectors of long service are ineligible for such appointments.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. In accordance with the Report of the Commission, and the Resolution of the Government of India thereupon, this new grade is to be filled by Indians and not by Europeans.

  Indian Civil Servants and Sanscrit.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, following upon the endowment of four Government scholarships for encouraging the scientific study of Sanscrit and Arabic by natives of India, the Government of India proposes to take similar steps for the encouragement of the like studies on the part of Indian Civil servants.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Such studies on the part of Indian Civil servants are already encouraged by the otter of substantial money rewards for passing examinations in the languages referred to, and it is not intended to establish scholarships for this purpose.
  *MR. REES: Are the rewards sufficiently encouraging?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, the money reward is 2,000 rupees for proficiency and 5,000 rupees for an honours degree.
  *MR. REES: Is the Under-Secretary aware that these rewards hardly cover the cost of tuition, and that further encouragement is necessary?

  Mysore Schools.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Mysore has directed the introduction of religious and moral instruction into all Government schools and colleges, for the express reason that irreverence of all kinds and disrespect for authority has been on the increase; whether specific religious instruction during school hours is now given in Mysore from the sacred books of the Hindus, Mahomedans, and Christians; and whether the Government of India proposes to adopt the same method of dealing with the present unrest in India at the root.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has seen a resolution of the Government of Mysore directing the introduction of a system of religious and moral instruction in all Government schools and colleges in that State with effect from the 1st November next. The measure is in the nature of an experiment, and its working will be watched with interest.
  *MR. REES: Will the Government of India follow the example in this behalf of this native State which has found so much favour in the eyes of the hon. Member for Merthyr?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think we had better wait and see how the experiment works.

  Indian Garrison Churches.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any arrangement has been come to between the denominations concerned with a view to settling the differencees about the garrison churches in India; and, if so, whether that arrangement involves the building of additional churches at the expense of the Indian taxpayer.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State is in communication with the authorities of the churches concerned, but he is unable at present to make any statement on the subject.

  Indian Famine Relief Reports.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is now prepared to consider the advisability of presenting to Parliament all or part of the Reports relating to the recent famine relief operations in India, in view of the publication of a Report by the Government of the United Provinces, and of the interest which the account of such relief work would have in connection with the question of unemployment.
  MR. BUCHANAN: As soon as the Report of the Government of the United Provinces reaches him, the Secretary of State will consider the expediency of presenting it; and he will do the same as regards the reports of other provinces where relief operations have been undertaken.

  Cost of Indian Ecclesiastical Establishment.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what was the cost to Hindus, Mahomedans, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Animists for the upkeep of Anglican and Roman bishops, priests, structures, and cemeteries for 1906–7 and 1907–8; and whether the Government of India contemplate adding to the Indians burden by putting Presbyterian divines, structures, and cemeteries on the Indian Exchequer.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The last figures available are those for 1906–7, which are contained in a Return issued on 3rd March last. The total cost of the Ecclesiastical Establishments in India for that year was about £153,000. The cost of the Presbyterian Establishment is included in the above total.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many belong to the Presbyterians?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
  *MR. REES: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the natives of India respect Christians for respecting Christianity?

  Native Labour for the Rand Mines.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Portuguese Government are encouraging the recruiting of native labour from their Colonies for the Rand Mines; and whether payment is made to the Portuguese Government for each native recruited.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel Seely, Liverpool, Abercromby): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. The recruiting of Portuguese natives for the Rand Mines is regulated by the Agreement of December, 1901, printed at page 189 of Cd. 2104. Articles VI. and IX. specify the payments to be made to the Portuguese Government.

  Victoria Falls.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the nature of the title of the Victoria Falls Power Company, Limited, to the Victoria Falls on the Zambesi and the adjoining land; whether it is freehold or leasehold, or what is the nature of the tenure; when it was granted; how much land it includes; whether it gives the monopoly of using the Falls for power purposes or for the transmission of power to a distance; and what is the price current paid to the company, and to whom it is paid.
  COLONEL SEELY: My predecessor in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for the Cirencester division on the 14th of May, 1907, gave certain particulars as to an indenture and agreement providing for the lease of the Victoria Falls by the British South Africa Company to the African Concessions Syndicate Limited. In that agreement power was taken to assign any or all of the rights and benefits accruing under it to the Victoria Falls Power Company, Limited. The Secretary of State understands that such assignment has been made. The answer

  481
  above referred to gives part of the information desired by my hon. friend but further inquiry is being made into the matter.

  Natal Administration.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give to the House regarding certain Bills passed by the Natal Government relating to the administration of Native affairs, and providing, amongst other things, that the Minister for Native Affairs and other officers exercising administrative functions under Native law shall not be subject to any court of law in the Colony by reason of any Act or matter whatsoever done in connection with their official duties, and generally making law in Zululand the ipse dixit of a magistrate; and whether, before His Majesty gives assent to these measures, their text will be laid upon the Table of the House and an opportunity given to discuss them should any considerable body of Members desire to do so.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Bill to provide for the better administration of Native affairs is printed in No. 5 in Cd. 4194. It has not yet been received in its final form and until it has been so received and reported on by the Governor I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to it.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Can we have an assurance that the Government will not give their assent until the House has had an opportunity of considering the Bill?
  COLONEL SEELYsaid that if any considerable number of Members wished to discuss it opportunity might be found.
  SIR G. PARKER: Will the Bill be laid before the House when received in its final form?
  COLONEL SEELY: It is impossible for me to say until I have seen it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: As a matter of procedure has not this House a right to claim that a Bill which is reserved and which deals with native affairs shall be reprinted?
  COLONEL SEELY: That is a question of which I should like notice.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when the Bill in its final form will be received?
  COLONEL SEELY: I cannot say exactly. I am anxious to give the House the fullest information.

  Murder of English Settlers in the New Hebrides.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information respecting the reported murder of an English settler and his two daughters in the New Hebrides; and whether the same was caused by the recruiting laws in force there under the Conventions.
  COLONEL SEELY: A telegram was received on the 22nd instant from the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific reporting that a British settler, Mr. Creig, and his two daughters had been murdered by natives at South Santo on 12th October, and their house pillaged. H.M.S. "Prometheus" and native police (French and British) had been sent to the island. His Majesty's Government have no other information on the subject, but they have telegraphed asking that full particulars may be sent by mail. I fail to attach any meaning to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question.
  MR. FELL: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have said I fail to attach any moaning to it.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire whether in the past similar outbreaks were caused by the recruiting laws?
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not see how that arises out of the Question.

  The Exiled King of Benin.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government will now consider the case of Overiami, ex-king of Benin, who has

  483
  been in banishment from his country and people for nearly ten years, with the view of permitting him to return home; and if he is aware that the British mission to Benin was the original aggressor, and also that there was no direct evidence inculpating the ex-king with the disastrous results to the said mission, for which he has suffered punishment.
  COLONEL SEELY: The case has been considered, and I regret to say that I cannot hold out any hope of its being possible to agree to the return of Overiami. The Secretary of State is fully aware of the circumstances as described in the Papers presented to Parliament in August, 1897, but, as the mission was a pacific one and the officers taking part in it were unarmed, the term "aggressor" seems hardly appropriate. There can be no question as to the part played by Overiami in the matter.
  MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether it was a fact that the officers and men were especially warned not to go there.
  COLONEL SEELYreplied that if his hon. friend would look back he would find in the Blue-book that it was quite a mistake to regard the mission as the aggressors. The state of affairs described in the Blue-book was very shocking and made it impossible for the Government to reconsider this matter.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British Indians resident in the Transvaal have taken the step of becoming naturalised as Portuguese subjects in Portuguese territory, and have thereafter been able to enter the Transvaal freely; and whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies recommends British Indians to follow this procedure in order to live freely in the Transvaal.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have no information as to any such incidents as are referred to by my hon. friend.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether naturalisation as Portuguese would enable these Indians to get over the difficulty.
  COLONEL SEELYsaid he had looked up the documents, but as the subject involved a legal question he asked his hon. friend to put down a precise Question.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a number of British Indians domiciled in the Transvaal, upon returning from India by Delagoa Bay without having registered under the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, have been arrested at the Transvaal frontier; whether, among those arrested, there were an aged woman, a paralytic, and a number of infants, who were exposed for a day and night in the open air; whether for two days they were offered only religiously unclean food and prevented from receiving other food; whether a number of the women and children were separated from their male protectors and sent to Johannesburg in trucks; and whether His Majesty's Government will appeal to the Government of the Transvaal to adopt other methods in dealing with such cases.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State, on his attention being drawn to allegations of ill-treatment of Indians, telegraphed on 13th October to inquire. The following reply was yesterday received from the Governor:—"Your telegram of 13th October, No. 1, on 29th September fifty-nine adult and seventeen minor Asiatics entered Colony without necessary certificates of registration. They were removed from train at Komati Poort where the accommodation provided them was sufficient and clean. Ample food including rice was provided them but they preferred to obtain their own from outside lockup which they were allowed to do. Usual lockup regulations considerably relaxed in their favour. They were subsequently taken to Barberton for trial, fifty eight adults convicted and sentenced to fine of twenty five pounds each or in default to two months imprisonment, despatch follows by mail. Ministers promise further report on subject of diet of Indian prisoners." I have not at present any further information.
  MR. LUPTON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what are the precise advantages of being a subject of the British Empire?
  COLONEL SEELY: There are innumerable advantages, but those advantages are somewhat minimised when you deliberately break the law.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: What about the infants exposed in the open air?
  COLONEL SEELY: We have telegraphed for information, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman there is every desire to avoid unduly harsh treatment.

  Licensed Premises in Canada.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether licensed premises were closed throughout the Dominion of Canada on the day of this week on which the Canadian Parliamentary elections were hold; and if he has any information as to the working of this regulation.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Dominion Elections Act of 1900 provides that no spirituous or fermented liquors or strong drinks shall be sold or given at any hotel, tavern, shop, or other place within the limits of any polling division, during the whole of the polling day at an election. I have no information as to the working of this regulation.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that it is the duty of the Treasury under the Exchequer and Audit Act to see that no money is issued from the Consolidated Fund for payments other than such as are authorised by Parliament, and having regard to the fact that, although the Old-age Pensions Act requires all property of every kind to be taken into account in estimating the means of applicants for old-age pensions, instructions have been issued to pension officers to disregard furniture to the extent of £30 belonging to applicants, it will be the duty of the Comptroller of Exchequer issues before authorising any payment to the Post Office in respect of old-age pensions, and the duty of the accounting officer of the postal department before authorising payments to local post offices, to require evidence that such payments are to be applied only in payment of pensions to persons qualified and at the rate specified
  486
  by the terms of the Old-age Pensions Act; and whether in order to avoid the possible deadlock that may arise when the money is required for payment of pensions, he will revise the instructions and make them consistent with the provisions of the Old-age Pensions Act.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): No issues will be made from the Exchequer to the Post Office in respect of old age pensions.

  Bronze Coinage.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advantages of replacing the present bronze coinage with nickel, such as has been recently introduced in India, where the anna is minted at a size slightly larger than a sixpenny piece, with undulating edges for difference.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware of any advantages which would justify the expense and disturbance to trade which would accrue from such a change.

  Early Morning Drinking.
  MR. HOLT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the harm arising from the consumption of alcoholic stimulants previous to the commencement of work in the morning, he will consider the desirability of inserting in the Licensing Bill a clause giving to the licensing justices the power of requiring licensed premises to remain closed on week-days until 8 a.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I cannot at the present stage undertake to put down an Amendment to the Bill in the sense desired by my hon. friend; but I am disposed to agree that it is a matter deserving of discussion, and I observe that he has an Amendment to Clause 20 on the Paper for the purpose.
  MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what

  487
  hour of the day it is beneficial to take half-a-noggin?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Welsh Church Commission Report.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can say when the Report of the Welsh Church Commission is likely to be issued.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The Report of the Welsh Church Commission is in a forward condition, and it is hoped will be considered by the Commission before the end of the present session.

  Policeman's Day of Rest.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police would be required to join the force in the event of one day's holiday in seven being granted to all the Metropolitan Police instead of one in fourteen days.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Commissioner of Police in his evidence before the Select Committee which is now considering the question of granting a weekly rest day to police forces, estimated the number to be added at 1,555 men.
  MR. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has the intention of carrying out this reform during this session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The matter is under the consideration of the Committee.

  Alien Immigration.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Sarah Mulne, brought from Russia to England by her parents when about two years old in 1894, admitted to the Whitechapel Union in 1900, and continued there as a pauper patient until the guardians ordered her discharge for the purpose of her being sent to America on the personal application of her mother, the father in the meantime having gone to America and
  488
  become a naturalised citizen in the United States; whether he is aware that, after being rejected in America, the girl was returned to Liverpool as being the port from which she came, and admitted to the Mill Road Infirmary of the West Derby Union, where she still remains; and whether, seeing that the ratepayers of the West Derby Union will be saddled with the future care and maintenance of this girl of fifteen years because Liverpool is the port from which she came, he is prepared to take any and, if so, what, action in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As at present advised, I doubt whether I have any power to take action in this matter, but I will make full inquiry, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  White Phosphorus Matches Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that firms of match importers had current contracts in existence for considerable quantities of matches for future delivery made prior to the First Reading of the White Phosphorus Matches Bill on 30th July, 1908; and, secondly, that on the passing of such Bill there would probably be considerable stocks, both in wholesale and retail hands, which could not in ordinary course be sold and consumed prior to the 1st January, 1910; and whether the Government would be prepared to accept an Amendment by way of proviso to Clause 2 of the Bill and Clause 3 of the Bill, whereby first the matches delivered in the United Kingdom in pursuance of contracts bona fide entered into prior to 30th July, 1908, and secondly the matches bona fide imported into the United Kingdom prior to the passing of the proposed Act, would be exempt from the penalties and provisions of the Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: According to the information in my possession, the period of grace allowed by the Bill, which was eighteen months from the date of the introduction of the Bill, was ample for the purpose of the disposal of stocks delivered under contracts existing at that date; only one representation to the contrary effect has reached me, and that just recently. There would be difficulties in the way of exempting particular stocks

  489
  of matches from the operation of the Bill, but I shall be happy to consider any evidence of hardship that can be shown to be caused by the provisions of the Bill.

  Magistrates' Clerks.
  MR. LEVY LEVER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it sometimes happens that the clerk to a bench of county justices is concerned professionally in cases in which the said bench is called upon to adjudicate; and whether, having regard to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice in such circumstances, he will introduce legislation to put an end to such a system.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of any such cases having occurred as would make legislation on the subject desirable. It is, I believe, generally recognised that where justices have to adjudicate between two parties, their clerk is under a stringent obligation not to act professionally for either side, but if the hon. Member will let me know of any instances to the contrary, that may have come to his knowledge, I will have inquiry made.

  Vivisection.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how long a time the experiment described by Surgeon-Colonel Lawrie, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on vivisection as having been made by Dr. Gaskell, lasted, including the time occupied in the dissection of the necks of two dogs, and during how much, if any, of that time an anæsthetic was employed upon both or either of the dogs; and, if an anæsthetic was used, what anæsthetic it was.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Particulars of the experiments are to be found in the evidence given before the Royal Commission. I cannot further discuss in this House a case which is under the consideration of the Commission.

  Case of Jane Morrice.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would inquire into the case of Jane
  490
  Elizabeth Morrice, who was sentenced at the Middlesex sessions on Saturday last to five years penal servitude and two years police supervision for stealing 1d.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As I have already stated, I cannot reply to this question until the ten days within which the prisoner may apply for leave to appeal against her sentence have expired.

  Army Reservists in the Police Force.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to refuse to take into its force time-expired soldiers of His Majesty's Army who have passed into the Reserve; and, if so, on what grounds these men are refused employment in this force.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, it is not the practice to refuse to take Army Reservists into the Metropolitan Police. There is a large number now serving.
  MR. CARLILE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at any rate, one case came under my notice of a man being refused on the ground that he still had some years to serve in the Reserve?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is a regulation limiting the number to 600, for obvious reasons.
  MR. CARLILE: Is that limit at present approached in any degree?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I imagine that the limit has been reached, but I will ascertain.

  Imports of Motor Cars.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many foreign-made motor cars were imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1907 and their value, and also the value of the parts and accessories imported; and how many British-made cars were exported during the same period and their value, and the value of the parts and accessories.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL, Dundee): The total number of imported motor cars consigned to the United Kingdom from

  491
  foreign countries in 1907 was 4,791, of a declared value of £2,075,555. The value of parts and accessories of motor cars consigned from foreign countries was £2,472,289. During the same year 2,318 British-made motor cars were exported, valued at £857,647. The value of British-made parts and accessories exported was £467,311.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Were any of these foreign cars sold to tariff reformers in this country?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Emigration Statistics.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people emigrated from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States, respectively, in 1906, and how many immigrants entered America in the same year.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will have such information upon the subject as is available printed in the Votes.
  [The following is the information referred to.]
  The following statement gives such of the information asked for by the hon. Member as available from official records, and indicates the principal qualifications which have to be borne in mind in attempting any comparison between the figures.
  1. United Kingdom. — No records exist of "emigration" properly so-called, i.e., of emigration for settlement abroad. Over a series of years, however, it may be assumed that the net outward movement of passengers of British nationality to non-Europeon destinations affords a fair estimate of the volume of such emigration. The figures of this not outward movement for 1906 are as follows:—

  Outward Movement

  Number of Passengers of British and Irish nationality leaving the United Kingdom for places out of Europe

  325,137

  Inward Movement.

  Number of Passengers of British and Irish nationality arriving in the United Kingdom from places out of Europe

  130,466

  Net Balance Outward

  194,671

  2. Germany.—The total number of "emigrants" (so described in Official Returns) of German nationality embarked at German and certain foreign ports in 1906 for non-European countries is officially recorded as 30,764.
  3. United States.—In ordinary years there is probably very little real emigration from the United States. The number of passengers, other than cabin passengers, leaving the seaports of the United States (not including British North America) in the year ended 30th June, 1907, was, however, 344,989.
  The total number of "alien immigrants" admitted into the United States during the calendar year 1906 was 1,241,836.

  French Assay Marks.
  MR. MOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now say what action has been taken with regard to the proposal of the French Government that French plate bearing French assay marks should be admitted into this country without liability to further assay and hall marking.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The French Government were informed in July last that, after full consideration, His Majesty's Government felt that the difficulties which prevent the adoption of such a proposal are insuperable.

  Labour Exchanges.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been, and are being, taken to create through the Board of Trade a systematic and co-ordinated organisation of labour exchanges in this country.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The subject is being thoroughly explored by the Board of Trade in relation to the general questions of unemployment, under employment, and casual labour. I have at present no statement to make upon it.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: Is there any truth in the rumour that special appointments have been made by the Board of Trade in connection with this organisation?
  MR. CHURCHILL: There is no truth whatever, so far as I am aware.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the system of labour bureaux in New South Wales free railway tickets are given to men seeking work?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no information on the subject.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman search the records?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I shall be glad to get all the information I can.

  Imported Boneless Meat.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that quantities of boneless meat have been imported during this year, entailing much labour and expense on the part of the sanitary authorities of the ports where it is landed; that this meat is consumed by the whole country and not alone by the inhabitants of the ports of importation, while the ports' authorities are called upon to pay for the inspection; and whether he will see that they are reimbursed their extra expense or that a national system of inspection be instituted.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer I gave yesterday to a Question he put to me on the subject of the importation of boneless meat. I am afraid I could not hold out any expectation that the suggestion in the last part of his present Question could be adopted, but I may repeat what I said yesterday, viz., that the Foreign Meat Regulations recently issued will have the effect of preventing the importation for consumption in England and Wales of meat of the class referred to.
  MR. WATT: Is not this meat sent in greatest bulk to the ports where there is an absence of inspection?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: If any facts with regard to that are laid before me I will gladly consider them.

  Depwade Union Vaccinators.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether all the public vaccinators in the Depwade Union, in the county of Norfolk, resigned their appointments on 14th March, 1908; and, if so, whether the vacancies have been filled.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. There is a difference of opinion between the guardians and the public vaccinators as to the fees which should be paid to the latter. The Local Government Board have endeavoured to bring about a settlement of the matter, but have not at present succeeded. I understand that negotiations are still proceeding between the guardians and the medical men.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: What steps are being taken by the Local Government Board to secure that the children are vaccinated?
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: The matter is being dealt with.
  MR. LUPTON: Have the parents displayed any great anxiety to have their children vaccinated?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Reports on Distress.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has called for reports from local authorities similar to those published in the Second Report of the Select Committe on Distress owing to Want of Employment, dated May 1895; and, if not, whether it is proposed to do so.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have not thought it necessary to call for reports from all local authorities on the subject of the want of employment in their districts; but my inspectors keep me in touch with the circumstances of various localities.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many men previously unemployed are at present actually at work in London, Manchester, and Leeds?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My latest information is that there are 566 in Leeds, 1,400 in Manchester, and 1,900 in London.

  Insanitation at the Franco-British Exhibition.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the complaints made of the insufficient sanitary accommodation provided at the Franco-British Exhibition, and, more particularly, the failure in this respect to provide for the convenience of employees; and what steps, by legislation, or otherwise, in view of the re-opening of the exhibition next year, he proposes to take to remove the causes of complaint.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter. I have on several occasions caused it to be investigated by one of the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board, and have urged upon the Exhibition authorities and the Hammersmith Borough Council the need for further accommodation. Some action has been taken as a result, but it does not appear to be sufficient, and I am still pressing the matter upon the borough council, who are now taking legal advice as to their powers with regard to it. I shall not lose sight of the subject.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that the exhibition closes this week, and that this disgraceful state of affairs has existed for weeks past? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman move in the matter before?
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member was entirely mistaken. Three months ago he and two inspectors paid several visits to the exhibition, and caused to be made a considerable improvement upon what then prevailed.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is not the present state of affairs disgraceful in the extreme?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Not to-day.
  MR. MARKHAM: Then why are you taking action now?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Mainly with the object of preventing the recurrence of similar things at any future exhibition that may be held.

  Unemployment at Leeds.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state on what authority he has based his estimate that £20,000 has been collected in Leeds among private citizens for the relief of the unemployed.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It was reported in the Press that the Lord Mayor had received over £18,000 a fortnight ago. I am making some further inquiry as to the exact facts.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that it is impossible to compress the work for the unemployed in Leeds involved in the expenditure of £120,000 into the slack months of 1908–9; that the city authorities estimate out of the total sum £20,000 will be spent in wages; that the sum collected from the citizens to be distributed in relief of necessitous cases and not on public works is £3,000; that the corporation refused to vote the Lord Mayor £10,000 for minor works; if so, whether, in view of the efforts made by the Leeds Corporation and the citizens to deal with the relief of the unemployed in the locality, he can determine the amount of the subvention likely to be granted to the local authorities from the central fund.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts connected with the efforts which are being made at Leeds to provide work upon which the unemployed will be engaged. I cannot say precisely how long the works referred to will take to complete, but I learn with satisfaction that some of them have already been commenced, and that others will be very shortly. I have already paid £1,400 to the Leeds Distress Committee out of the grant. This is a larger sum than they received during the whole of last season. As the winter proceeds I shall probably make further payments to them, but I cannot say beforehand what the amount will be. This must necessarily depend upon the circumstances.

  Distress Relief Works.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the facts disclosed in the Return of Proceedings of the Distress Committees for 1907–8; that 14 per cent. of the applications were not investigated at all because only such cases were investigated as work could be found for on relief works or otherwise; that of the 54,613 applicants found to be qualified, employment could only be offered to 41,459; that of these 41,459 no less than 5,469 persons, for various reasons, did not take up the work offered; and whether, having regard to these and other facts, he will, in the orders or regulations to be issued, encourage the Distress Committees to provide, so far as possible, a greater variety of work specially suited to the industrial training and capacities of groups of workers, and will do all in his power to create or expand, without waiting for legislation next year, further facilities for thus drafting men off to the skilled or unskilled employment for which they are specially qualified, either by systematic organisation of labour exchanges or by enabling the Distress Committees, where possible, to make direct arrangements with private employers to take on men for special work in factories or on works temporarily out of operation.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will bear in mind my hon. friend's suggestion. Legislation would be needed to provide for the organisation of labour exchanges on mutual lines. The Distress Committees are at present empowered to arrange with private employers to take on men.

  Unemployment in America.
  MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the basis of his calculation that in America there were 4,000,000 unemployed workmen; and will he say what was the number similarly unemployed in the United Kingdom.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The statement that there were 4,000,000 unemployed workmen in America was not founded upon any calculation of my own. It is stated in The Times of the 2nd instant, that the number cannot now be less than
  498
  3,000,000 to 4,000,000, and I understand that in reports presented to the Civic Convention in New York in April last the number of unemployed mechanics and labourers (excluding farm labourers) was given as 4,750,000. It is not possible to estimate the number of unemployed in the United Kingdom with any degree of accuracy.
  EARL WINTERTON: Is it not even more difficult to estimate the number of unemployed in the United States with any degree of accuracy?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It was until recently when the New York State decided upon establishing a new method of calculation.
  EARL WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that New York is only one of some thirty odd States?
  MR. JOHN BURNSreplied that New York State was universally taken by statisticians, for figures and deductions therefrom, as a standard State, and if the noble Lord would see the later reports to the New York Department he would find his statement confirmed.
  MR. HUNTinquired whether the great difference between the two countries was that the unemployed in America had money in their pockets, while here they had not.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he happened to have visited America three times, and had seen the unemployed in both countries. The only difference he could detect, apart from numbers, was that the unemployed in America, for a short time after losing work, were better dressed, and many did not drink so much as some of his fellow countrymen. [LABOUR cries of "Oh" and "It is not true."] In point of number of days idle, the advantage was with the British workman.
  MR. O'GRADY: It is a shameful comparison.
  AN HON. MEMBER: A perfectly true one, though.

  Free Night Shelters.
  MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the basis of his calculation that there were 800,000 people housed and fed in the free night-shelters in Berlin alone every year; and, on a similar computation, what is the number annually fed in night shelters and workhouses in London.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: For the precise figure 800,000, as represening the number of persons annually housed and fed in Berlin in public and private shelters, I would refer the hon. Member to W. H. Dawson's book "The German Workman" (p. 134). I am not aware of any statistics as to the number of persons annually fed in night shelters in London, but perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to some interesting figures on the subject, contained in Sir Shirley Murphy's Report to the London County Council, submitting the result of a census of homeless persons on the night of the 8th February, 1907.
  EARL WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that the figures on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his calculations are arrived at by adding together the number of men who have been at the night refuges every day in the year, and treating them as separate individuals?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: If the noble Lord will turn to the Report issued by the Labour Bureau of Washington he will see the significant admission that in 1904 there were over 4,000,000 admissions representing 2,000,000 people.

  The Education Bill.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government is represented at, or is in any way privy to, the negotiations that have lately been proceeding with the object of arriving at a settlement by general agreement of the more important controversial points that have arisen over the Education Bill; of what representative authority, if any, those engaged in negotiations are possessed; and to what extent they are empowered to bind those for whom they are supposed to act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): No formal negotiations have been carried on by the Government, but I have, of course, lost no opportunity of collecting opinion in many quarters, and I am not yet without hope that a settlement by general agreement may be reached.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not commit the House to any compromise which will whittle away the principle of the Bill?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Government are not likely to abandon any of the principles of the Bill.

  Christmas Work in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what proportion of the 8,000 extra hands to be employed at Christmastide will work for two weeks, what proportion for four weeks, what proportion for six weeks, what proportion for eight weeks, what proportion for ten weeks, what proportion for twelve weeks, and what proportion for fourteen weeks; and what proportion will receive 20s. per week, and what proportion 24s. per week.
  *THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on the 26th instant that I hoped to be able somewhat to increase the number of extra hands in London at Christmastide by a further reduction in the amount of overtime. I am glad to say that I have now been able to arrange for the employment of 200 additional men. In round numbers about 3,900 persons will be employed for the actual Christmas week and up to two weeks; 2,400 from that up to four weeks; 1,700 from that up to six weeks; 71 will be employed between six and eight weeks; 69 between eight and ten weeks; and 34 over that period. The fixed rate for adults is 24s., and besides this they will receive additional payment, apart from overtime, for specially heavy work on Christmas Day and Boxing Day. A certain number employed on sorting duties receive 20s. a week for a short time where they require training.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if it was the fact that applicants for employment receive a printed form stating there were no vacancies.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not sure if there are any vacancies left.

  Overtime in the Post Office.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, can he state the number of men that would be required under his control if the hours of those men who were working more than eight per day were reduced to eight per day.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. In the case of the great majority of Post Office servants the hours of duty are eight per day, or less. As regards those classes whose hours of duty are oversight hours they have been fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the recent Select Committee on Post Office Servants.

  Barcelona Coal Contract.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that the institution of a civil action by J. and P. Coats, Limited, in the question of the Barcelona contract for coal would mean a large disbursement of money in payment of Edinburgh solicitors' and counsel's fees in pursuit of a possible £20 damages; whether it is the duty of the Crown Agent in Scotland to prosecute in cases where the defrauded himself would prosecute in England; and, if so, will he advise the Crown Agent to reconsider his decision.
  I beg also to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the export of coal to Barcelona in January last by J. and P. Coats, Limited, of Paisley, whether the procurator fiscal into whose hands the case was first put was on the point of instituting proceedings when he was interfered with by the Crown Agent in Edinburgh; and whether the action of the Crown Agent followed in point of time, considerable influence being exercised by the coal trade, by shipowners, and by wealthy merchants generally.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): I again refer the hon Gentleman to the answer given by me on this subject on 19th October to
  502
  a question put by the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. Not the slightest blame attaches to the Crown Agent or others. The ultimate decision was come to by me after careful and personal consideration. The responsibility for it is mine and it is not in accordance with practice to enter by way of answer to a Question into the grounds of the decision. As to the astounding and unfounded suggestion at the close of the second Question the hon. Member must judge of his responsibility.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Having regard to the condition of the export coal trade, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
  *MR. THOMAS SHAW: A discussion could take place on the Vote for my salary. Oil such an occasion it would give me great pleasure to deal with these statements, which are not my statements, and to defend the action of the Crown agent.
  MR. WATT: Does not the discretion which rests in the Crown agent give rise to wirepulling?
  *MR. THOMAS SHAW: I must ask the hon. Member again to consider his responsibility in putting these questions which are quite unfounded.

  United Irish League Resolutions in the Press.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has yet been arrived at with reference to the prosecution of newspapers which publish intimidatory resolutions passed by the United Irish League branches, and of the members of the League who pass these resolutions and organise the acts of intimidation which follow them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Proceedings will be taken to prevent the publication by newspapers of resolutions of an intimidatory character. The proceedings to be taken must depend upon the circumstances of each case, and no general rule can be laid down beforehand.

  Conflicts with Irish Police.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  503
  of Ireland whether there have been any conflicts since January, 1907, between armed bands and the police; and whether, having regard to the practically unrestricted traffic in firearms in various parts of the country, the authorities have adopted precautionary measures to cope with such conflicts.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that since January, 1907, there have been three cases which appear in some degree to come within the terms ot the Question. On 14th July, 1907, in county Clare, shots were fired from a wood at two policemen and the man they were protecting; and the policeman returned the fire of the unseen assailants. On 15th August, 1907, in county Antrim, a party procession armed with swords and pikes attacked the police and afterwards fired shots at them from departing trains. On 28th August, 1907, in county Galway, several shots were fired into a house, and shortly afterwards a police patrol fired at an armed party who were believed to have been the perpetrators of the outrage. In none of these three cases was anyone injured. The authorities have no knowledge of any armed bands going about in Ireland.

  Classification of Irish Crime.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will compare the number of crimes throughout Ireland classified as agrarian and non-agrarian, respectively, under each of the headings firing at the person, and firing into dwellings, for the years 1878 to 1907, inclusive, and the period of nine months ended 30th September, 1908.
  MR. BIRRELL: I will furnish with to-night's votes a tabular statement giving the required information for the thirty years in question.

  Gun Licence Duties in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there has been an increase in the revenue derived from the issue of gun licences in Ireland during the past two years; if so, in what counties such increase has taken place; and whether the increase generally is commensurate with the increase in the
  504
  number of firearms throughout the country at the present time as compared with 1906.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inland Revenue authorities inform me that the revenue from gun licences in Ireland for the year ending 31st March last was £9,814 as compared with £9,543 in the preceding year, and £9,397 in the year before that. The increase in the last two years, however, is, I am informed, considerably below the average annual increase for the past ten years. The returns of the inland revenue authorities do not show the revenue from gun licences by counties. There is no means of arriving at a comparison between the number of firearms in the country now and in 1906.

  The Irish Language.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that efforts are being made to secure that a knowledge of the Irish language shall be a condition imposed on those desirous of matriculating at the new State-aided University in Dublin; and whether he will take the steps necessary to insure that no such restriction is brought into force.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Executive Government has no voice in the matter of determining what shall be the subject of the matriculation examination at either of the new Universities.

  Compensation Awards at Gort Quarter Sessions.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state full particulars of, and the amounts granted on decrees for malicious injuries at the recent Gort quarter sessions.
  MR. BIRRELL: The following amounts were granted at these sessions as compensation for malicious injuries to property:—Walter Shaw Taylor, £5 15s. Michael Martin, £3 10s., Edward Martin, £8, and the Marquess of Clanricarde, £25. In addition £50 was awarded to Martin and Thomas McDonagh for injury to horses, and £31 10s. to Viscount Gough for injury to sheep by overdriving.

  Riverstown Cattle Drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state full particulars of the cattle-drive which took place at Riverstown, county Sligo, early on Wednesday morning the 14th October last; were any revolver shots heard in the direction of Cooper's Hill on the occasion; were any arrests made; and what sentences have been passed on the perpetrators.
  MR. BIRRELL: On the occasion in question twenty-three head of cattle were driven off two grazing farms near Riverstown. The police heard a shot in the direction of Cooper's Hill, and arrested three men on suspicion. The men were subsequently discharged for want of evidence.

  Crime at Woodford.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent Gort quarter sessions Judge Anderson stated that the district of Woodford was in a most lawless condition and that the King's writ did not run; and what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the Question on this subject which was put by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh.

  Keragie Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have received intelligence of a horse having been stabbed to death while grazing on a farm at Keragie, county Longford; whether he is aware that this is the third animal belonging to the same owner which has been stabbed since July; and whether in any case anyone has been made criminally amenable.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police have not received intelligence of any horse having been stabbed in the county of Longford since last July.

  Ballybofey Evicted Tenant.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he
  506
  can state what the Estate Commissioners have done in the case of John M'Monagle, who was evicted from his farm situated on the estate of Colonel Lyle, Ballybofey, county Donegal, and applied for reinstatement some time ago without success; whether he is aware that a solicitor after-wards swore an affidavit setting out the facts, and asked for a reconsideration of the case, and will he say if it was reconsidered, and with what result, and, if his application was rejected, why; and whether the Estates Commissioners will take steps to have M'Monagle reinstated before they sanction the sale of Colonel Lyle's estate.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received from the person named an application for reinstatement in a farm from which his cousin had been evicted, and after due inquiry decided to take no action in the matter. Subsequently, the applicant's solicitor submitted an affidavit and asked for reconsideration. The Commissioners thereupon fully reconsidered the case and decided to adhere to their ruling.

  Unemployment in Ireland.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board have taken any steps to find out the number of unemployed in Ireland at the present time, or have taken any steps for the efficient distribution of such portion of the unemployed grant as Ireland may be entitled to; and, if no steps have been taken, will he issue instructions to the Local Government Board to take action forthwith.
  MR. BIRRELL: When the Local Government Board of Ireland receive representations from distress committees that there is abnormal lack of employment in any locality, the Board adopt every means in their power to ascertain the facts. Every application for a grant is dealt with on its merits and with due regard to the relative necessities of the districts in which there is abnormal distress from want of employment. I think it desirable to make it clear that the grant for unemployed workmen is not intended to be applied towards the relief of the ordinary distress arising from poverty, which is properly provided

  507
  for by means of the Poor Law. I understand that the object of the grant is to provide employment in those districts in which, owing to severe trade depression temporarily affecting local industries, the able-bodied working-men have found themselves suddenly deprived, wholly or in part, of their usual means of earning a livelihood.
  MR. MOONEYinquired if the Irish Local Government Board would follow the example of the English Local Government Board in making grants to distressed districts?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think the Irish Local Government Board is an example to the English Board.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: What sort?
  In reply to MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green),
  MR. BIRRELLsaid a grant would be made to Dublin almost immediately.
  MR. JOYCEasked if it was not the fact that when Irish local authorities applied for loans they were refused? Could not the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the Treasury to grant them?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am anxious to sanction all loans that can possibly be sanctioned for the relief of distress.

  Theft of Cattle in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case at Ennis quarter sessions in which Michael Hogan obtained a decree of £40 for six head of cattle which were driven from his land on 1st September, and never recovered; and whether now that cattle are being stolen as well as driven, he intends to take sterner measures of repression commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am aware of the facts of this case. The six cattle appear to have been stolen, but by whom the police have not been able to discover. I understand that thefts of cattle sometimes occur in Ireland as elsewhere, quite apart
  508
  from any agrarian agitation, and the thieves are prosecuted if discovered. In this case, the police have used, and are using, every effort to discover the offenders and to trace the cattle.

  Irish Intermediate Board and the Gaelic League.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what decision has been arrived at by the Irish Intermediate Board with reference to the resolution submitted for their consideration by the Gaelic League as to the literary courses; and can he state what decision has been arrived at in respect of the rules dealing with exhibitions and prizes.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Board of Intermediate Education have had the resolution under consideration. They are of opinion that Rule 49 does not bear the construction placed on it by the Education Committee of the Gaelic League, and consequently that the Rule will not operate to the detriment of students taking Irish, as the Committee appear to anticipate.

  Irish Intermediate Education Board Rules.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule in the month of July last, it was not possible for hon. Members interested in the new rules formulated by the Irish Intermediate Board to take exception to any or all of them; whether he is aware that strong representations were made to him personally on the subject by members of the Irish party, and that the actual printing of the rules was moved for and secured by the hon. Member for South Kerry; and whether, in order to prevent a repetition of these delays, he will take steps to ensure that new rules shall be laid before Parliament before the end of May in each year, and printed immediately.
  MR. BIRRELL: I agree that it is desirable that the rules of the Intermediate Education Board should be laid on the Table as early as possible, and I will consult with the Board as to whether the rules for the ensuing year cannot be

  509
  presented to Parliament before the end of May in each year. It is, of course, open to any hon. Member to move for a printing order in such case, but I have no objection to move myself for the printing order when the proper time arrives next year.
  MR. BOLAND: Were not strong representations made to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject?
  MR. BIRRELL: If strong representations were made to me personally I am not aware of the fact.

  Irish Land Purchase Bonus.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of any intention on the part of the Treasury to revise the percentage of the bonus payable under Clause 48 of The Irish Land Act, 1903.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on this subject in reply to a Question addressed to the Prime Minister later on the Paper.

  Monivea Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the night of 2nd October, the house of John Mahon, near Monivea, county Galway, was fired into, a gunshot having been fired through a window and two pistol shots fired through the door; whether any arrests have been made; and whether the Government will take any further steps than they have been taking to cope with these firing outrages.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that the house of John Mahon was fired into on the night of the 2nd instant. No arrests have been made. Every precaution is taken by the police when there is reason to anticipate outrage.

  Firearm Regulations in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that it is necessary to be licensed in order to carry arms in England and Scotland, but no such restriction exists in Ireland since the dropping by the Government of the Peace Preservation
  510
  Act; and whether, in view of the increase of outrages in Ireland in which firearms, including revolvers, are used, the Government will take immediate steps to restrict the free sale of such arms to irresponsible persons in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in supposing that there is any law as to licences for carrying arms which does not operate in Ireland equally with England and Scotland. The Government do not contemplate legislation differentiating Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of the sale of arms.

  Irish Telegraph Engineers.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the Southern Irish District is to be made the telegraphic training ground for Royal Engineers in place of the Southern District of England; if so, whether this would involve any, and, if so, what, changes in the personnel of the clerical staff of the Superintending Engineer's Office at Dublin; whether the cost of the change can be stated, and what the cost was of the transfers of the staffs from Cork and Belfast to Dublin in March, 1907; and is he aware that the opinion of the business community in Ireland is strongly antagonistic to the further additions to the military garrisons in that country to the displacement of its civil population.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In the present altered conditions of telegraph and telephone work the Southern District of England is not the most suitable training ground for the Royal Engineers and the question of assigning to them a more suitable district, possibly the Southern District of Ireland, is under consideration. If the change is carried out, the present civilian clerical staff (numbering 19 in the Southern District of Ireland) will be replaced by Military Clerks, but of course the civilian clerks will be found employment in other districts. I have no estimate of the probable cost of the change, but it cannot amount to much. The cost of the removal of staff and goods in 1907 from Belfast and Cork amounted to about £600, but there will be considerable saving in the result.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the superseded clerks be found employment in Ireland, or will they be transferred to England? Is it the policy of the Department to let military men take the places of Civil servants in Ireland?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To the last Question I can give an emphatic negative. Efforts will certainly be made to find employment for the clerks in Ireland.

  Irish Home Rule.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the Government's intention to introduce a Home Rule Bill next session.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have no statement to make at present with regard to legislation for next session.

  Licence Duties.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, whether the provisions of the Licensing Bill will prevent any revision of the existing licence duties until such time as the State resumes the monopoly value of licences.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

  Ecclesiastical Discipline.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Primo Minister what progress has been by the Convocations of Canterbury and York in their consideration of the Letters of Business addressed to them after the Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline; and whether he will take steps to expedite their proceedings by the imposition of a time limit or otherwise.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that after general consideration of the Royal Letters of Business at their sessions of November, 1906, the Convocations of Canterbury and York appointed Committees in both their Upper and Lower Houses, to consider "the nature of the reply to be given to the Royal Letters of Business." These Committees have been since that date engaged in a very thorough investigation of the different branches of the subject, and have presented certain
  512
  Reports to the Convocations in the course of last year. In the Convocation of Canterbury a Committee of Bishops appointed to draft a historical memorandum, presented in February, 1908, to the Upper House a Report dealing with the Ornaments of the Church and its Ministers. A further Report from a Committee on the Rubrics of the Prayer Book generally will, it is understood, be presented next February. In the Convocation of York, Committees of both the Upper and Lower Houses presented Reports in May, 1908, for the consideration of the Convocation. I do not propose in these circumstances to take the steps suggested by my hon. friend.

THE POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTIONS.
MR. BELLAIRSaddressed to the Speaker a question affecting the rights of private Members. He said he had placed upon that day's Order Paper two Questions, and they had been postponed by the First Lord of the Admiralty. That morning he received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman asking him to postpone the Questions. He submitted that hon. Members might have an object in placing Questions on the Paper for a particular day, and that they ought not to be deprived of what was practically the only opportunity that private Members had of lording it over His Majesty's Ministers.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not know what the exact circumstances were. The First Lord of the Admiralty was not present, and he would like to hear what, if anything, that right hon. Gentleman had to say before making a pronouncement in reply to the Question. The general rule was that an hon. Member who handed in a Question fixed his own time for asking it, and if the Minister to whom it was addressed had any reason for asking that it might be postponed he did so either by letter or verbally when the Question was called on. Prima facie, he should say that no Minister had a right to order a Question to be put off; that rested with the private Member who put down the Question.
Mr. ESSEXasked the Speaker whether, if a Question were on the Order Paper of the day, he would consult the hon. Member

513
who had put it down, or refrain from calling it merely on the word of a Minister.
*Mr. SPEAKERsaid that if the hon. Member concerned stated that he wished to postpone the Question, of course it was deferred. If he received an intimation from a Minister that he had requested the hon. Member to postpone it, in order to save time he did not call on the hon. Member to put the Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. WALTER LONGasked as to next week's business.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the Licensing Bill would be taken at every sitting of the House next week.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked the Prime Minister whether it was intended to take the two London Electricity Supply Bills and the instruction on the London and District Electricity Supply Bill on Monday night; and, if so, whether he was aware that, in view of the guillotine Resolution on the Licensing Bill, the debates on those private Bills might last a long time—possibly all night and part of next day.
Mr. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman is rather pessimistic. At any rate, we will make a beginning and see how we get on.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection that they had added to Standing Committee A the following thirteen members (in respect of the Criminal Appeal (Amendment) [Lords] and of the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Bills): Mr. Rupert Guinness, Colonel Warde, Mr. Stanier, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. Crossley, Dr. Rutherford, Mr. Owen Philipps, Mr. Alfred Mason, Mr. Edmund Lamb, Mr. John Thompson, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Halpin, and Mr. Nolan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT (1905) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905," presented by Sir George
  514
  M'Crae; supported by Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Dundas White. To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 10th November, and to be printed. [Bill 365.]

  LICENSING (EXPENSES).
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the Remuneration and Expenses of the Licensing Commission, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that his fundamental objection to the provision of salaries for the three Licensing Commissioners, viz., £1,200 for the Senior Commissioner, and £1,000 each for the two Junior Commissioners, was not disposed of by the fact that, under an Amendment put down by the Solicitor-General, these moneys would not be found out of the compensation fund, but out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, although it might lessen the degree of his objection. The Solicitor-General foreshadowed on the previous night that the point that would be taken would be that the Opposition had been saying that it was wicked and unfair that this money should be provided out of the compensation fund, and that now the Government had changed their front it did not lie with the Opposition to make any further objection. But if a footpad presented himself in the small hours of the morning, and said: "Your money or your life," because a man might pay his money to save his life, that did not mean that he any the less objected to the most unfair alternative presented to him. So in this Bill, because the Government presented the alternative that the salaries should not be found by the compensation fund, but out of moneys provided by Parliament, although they took less objection to the present alternative, still they had a fundamental objection to the whole matter.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The proper course for the hon. Member would be to strike out Clause 14. The effect of negativing this Resolution, as I understand the hon. Member wishes to do, would only be to put the cost on the compensation fund.
  *MR. G. D. FABERcontinuing, said he would prefer the lesser evil of the present proposal of the Government. On the broader question as to whether this was the time for saddling the country with a project of this kind, he would ask if the Treasury was so overflowing, or the liabilities of the country so small, that they could afford to throw away money here, there, and everywhere. Was not the task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer sufficiently difficult, with the revenue of the country falling by millions, with the liabilities of the country rising by millions, with the taxpayers up to their necks in taxation at present and when next Budget Day came, he should think, almost head over ears? Was this the time for putting forward burdens of this kind in the shape of salaries for Commissioners whom the country did not want? It might be argued on the other side that after all this was only a small matter. When the Prime Minister, in his speech introducing the measure, came to the point about the salaries of the Commissioners, he remarked that the moneys would come out of the compensation fund, and there were cheers on his side of the House, followed by ironical cheers from the Opposition, and then the Prime Minister, in deference perhaps to the ironical cheers, said that after all it would not be a large financial matter. It was, however the last straw that broke the camel's back, and to make the mere answer, when a peccadillo had been committed, that it was only a little one, might be a sufficient answer for the purposes of debate, but, he did not think it was a sound one. The difficulties that presented themselves to the Government in the matter of finance were almost greater than they could bear. They were well aware, from the vivid sketch of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of predatory beings prowling in the neighbourhood of henroosts, but he was not sure that when next Budget day arrived, the Chancellor would not find that the eggs in the hen-roost
  516
  had become addled and that the hens had flown, and that the only birds that were left were the predatory or amatory cocks.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is himself flying far from the subject.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid he would descend from the language of the hen-roost as soon as he could. When the Chancellor found that the eggs were addled and the hens had gone, and came to put his hand on the place where he imagined good eggs lay, he would find nothing worth taking. The Government seemed to have a perfect passion for the establishment of Commissioners with large salaries. There was the case of the Small Holdings Commission for England, and exactly the same in the case of the Scottish Commission, both with high salaries and—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss this question. This is after all a formal Resolution, and the only question for him to decide is whether he prefers that the salaries shall be paid out of the compensation fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  *Mr. G. D. FABERsaid that if these salaries had to be inflicted either on the taxpayers or on the compensation fund, if it must be one way or the other, then he said, and said definitely, that the lesser of the two evils was that the taxpayers of the country should pay these salaries, and that they should not be put upon the back of a well-deserving class of the community, the licence-holders, who were already going to be smitten almost to extinction under the different clauses of the Government's Bill.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he desired to move an Amendment to add, at the end of the Resolution, the words "such expenses not to exceed £6,000 per annum."
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," and no Amendment, therefore, is possible.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that that would not prevent him from saying that they should not pass a Resolution of that kind, which committed them to an indefinite liability. That was to say, they would have to pay out of the funds of the nation such a sum as the Treasury might choose to set aside for the benefit of the expenses of the central trio in London. The actual salary to be paid to these three gentlemen had already been defined in the Resolution. He did not know who was in charge of the Bill that afternoon—
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,): It does not matter.
  SIB F. BANBURYsaid it was a serious matter that an hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should say it did not matter. In the minds of true economists the voting of unlimited money did matter. He might be met by the statement that it would be impossible to put a definite sum in the Resolution, because it was not known what the expenses of the Commission would be, and his answer to that would be that the Government ought to know. He quite agreed that this particular cost should be put upon the taxpayer, but he thought the taxpayer should be safeguarded by the House of Commons; he had always understood that that was the first duty of the House of Commons. It used to be the old difference between King and Commons that the King wanted to spend the money and the Commons wanted to prevent him doing so, but the situation now seemed to be reversed. The most democratic House of Commons that the country had ever, unfortunately, seen was the House of Commons that, more than any other, considered the expenditure of money a small matter. Why should it not be possible to estimate what the cost would be? After all, the amount of the salaries having been determined, the remaining expenses would only be the cost of the offices and their administration, i.e., the salaries of the clerks required to carry out the work. It did not seem to be a very large and serious matter. The Solicitor-General flattered him the other day
  518
  by saying that if he (Sir F. Banbury) was one of these Commissioners he would have no difficulty in separating certain accounts. He thought, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had offered him the post, he would have had very little difficulty in finding out the expenses of the office. They saw before them an array of talent on the Treasury Bench. Was it conceivable that the one right hon. Gentleman and the two hon. Gentlemen on that Bench were not able, with all the resources they had behind them, to tell what the expense of a few clerks would be? He suspected that they were afraid the expenses would be much larger than the House had any anticipation of, that they knew that the central trio was going to be a sort of new Star Chamber, and that the expenses of it would be extremely high.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he desired to join in the appeal of the hon. Baronet that before they passed this Resolution authorising so large an expenditure they should have more information laid before them. He did not quite agree with the hon. Baronet that the office expenses would be limited to a few clerks' salaries. The amount of correspondence entailed would be enormous. There would be correspondence with every bench of licensing justices in the country. Then there might be questions of the revising of the schemes sent up by licensing justices, and numerous private persons and societies might appeal against those schemes, in so far as they were able to know of them, which was doubtful, and that would entail correspondence. Then there might arise questions of the jurisdiction of the Commissioners towards recalcitrant magistrates, which might involve a further and very considerable expenditure. For instance, they knew that the magistrates had to give full information as to their schemes and the conditions of licensing in their area. Supposing they refused to give that information, what means had the Commissioners of enforcing it? It might be by legal proceedings, which again would be very costly. Therefore he did not know that the estimate was altogether so simple as the hon. Baronet imagined. There were a number of contingent

  519
  charges, and he thought they were entitled to ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Department to say, roughly, what he calculated the expenses of these Commissioners would be, because there was a great deal of certain expenditure, certain clerical expenses, and certain postal expenses, and a great deal of indefinite legal expense. Another consideration that occurred to him was how, in practice, these sums would appear in the Estimates of the year. Would a separate class of Estimates be created, and would it be possible to make quite sure that when that class was on they would appear first? Then, again, what Minister would answer for them in the House? Before they committed themselves to this expenditure they must know what means they would have of checking and revising it, and he suggested that they would vote this money with greater readiness if they knew that. A further consideration which occurred to him was as to whether it was necessary that this Commission should be paid at all. There were many men with the greatest knowledge of licensing questions, and he should have thought that one could get Commissioners who would undertake the duties without payment. He thought it would not be impossible to find a gentleman to fill the position of Commissioner, who would command the confidence of the House, and who would do the work unpaid. But if there was to be a body of Commissioners at all, the House should have an opportunity of revising and checking the payments, and it was not clear that such an opportunity would be afforded. He thought, too, that the House should know something more of the personnel of the Commission.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That question is not relevant. It can be raised in Committee on the Bill.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he would put it in this way—that the House would more gladly accept the Resolution if they had greater assurance as to the status and description of the gentlemen the Government had in their mind.
  EARL WINTERTONdesired to support the view of
  520
  his hon. friend that this Resolution ought not to be passed without some further details from the Government. They all recognised that this was merely a formal Resolution, and that the details would be settled in other parts of the Bill; at the same time more information should be given. He thought that both sides of the House in future should oppose money Resolutions in which the actual details for which they were voted were not put down. They ought to object to the present Resolution also on the grounds of the Bill itself, because, although the probability was that a large sum of money was not intended to be spent on the expenses of the Commission, still the possibility was that the sum might be very much larger than the Government intended. The Commission to be appointed could not be described as a democratic body; it would be purely bureaucratic, and they knew that bureaucratic institutions had the habit of spending far more money than they ought, or than was intended. He appealed to distinguished Radicals, financial purists, and economic experts below the gangway opposite to say whether they did not agree that it was not right that the House should pass a money Resolution in which the details did not appear. When he said that the expenses of this bureaucratic Commission were likely to grow out of proportion to their needs, he had in mind the education committees of the county councils, whose expenses had grown enormously, there being a multiplication of unnecessary letters and telegrams, accompanied by red tape. He would put it to the Solicitor-General whether he did not think that these bureaucratic Commissions had a tendency to spend money out of all proportion to the amount that it was intended by Parliament should be spent. The hon. and learned Gentleman had shown Members of the Opposition great courtesy and consideration during these debates, and he trusted he would give them some information, if only on the general ground that Resolutions like the present ought not to be passed without their hearing some details from the Government.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid the particular question before the House was a very

  521
  narrow one. It was whether the expenses of the Commissioners, whatever they might be, ought to be borne out of funds provided by Parliament, or whether they should be part of the compensation levy. The amount to be spent was not unlimited. First of all, the salaries of the Commissioners were restricted by the very terms of the clause, to which they would come later. There were certain maximum sums, and the amounts allowed to the chairman and other members of the Commission would not exceed those mentioned in the clause. With regard to the members of the office staff, before they were appointed they must be approved by the Secretary of State, and the remuneration to be given must be sanctioned by the Treasury. In addition to that, the whole of the salaries and the whole cost of the office would be a matter which could be discussed in the House of Commons on the Estimates. The Minister who would have to answer in the House for the proceedings of the Commission would be the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Members would be in a position to make any criticism on the proceedings which took place in the office of the Commissioners. Whatever Government was in power, it would take care that the persons appointed were persons possessing the confidence of the House generally. If the hon. Member for Sheffield could suggest any suitable gentleman who would be willing to fill the office for a nominal sum, he had no doubt any suggestion coming from him would receive the gravest consideration of the Treasury.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: Will the Commissioners be able to incur expenses?
  SIR S. EVANS: I think so; yes.
  MR. WALTER LONGasked whether the Solicitor-General intended the House to understand that the payment of the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners was to appear as part of the Home Office Vote. If they followed the form of the Home Office Vote it was obvious it would be impossible on the Home Secretary's salary to discuss the action of the Commissioners
  522
  who would be independent of the control of the Home Secretary. Therefore, he wished to know whether in future in the Home Office Vote there would be a separate heading under which would come the salaries of the Commissioners and their staff. [Sir S. EVANS was understood to indicate assent.] That, of course, made it clear that the conduct of the Commissioners would come under the review of Parliament. So far as concerned the question at issue, it was of course obvious that his hon. friends were in this position: if they successfully resisted the passage of the Resolution then the payment of the salaries and expenses would have to come out of the levy—a course which they undoubtedly did not desire. On the other hand, he thought his hon. friends were justified in calling attention to the questions which they had raised. The Government were unnecessarily creating a new body of officials to do work which could have been done in almost the same time without their appointment. The Government and their supporters had cried "economy" while in opposition, but since they had come into office they had indulged in extravagance which was altogether unjustifiable, and the extravagance was not less on this occasion, because the sum involved happened to be comparatively small. His hon. friends could only make a protest, but if they were to enforce it by a vote they would be rightly exposed to the charge that, whatever their intentions might be, the result of their division, if successful, would be to cast an additional burden upon the levy. He strongly advised his hon. friends not to press the Motion to a division, but simply to protest against this addition to the public expenditure, which they believed to be the worst form of extravagance, namely, spending public money without any just cause or reason.
  *MR. BARNARDsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had elicited from the Solicitor-General what he wanted to know, namely, that these Commissioners would be responsible to Parliament. It seemed to him that there was no reason whatever for opposing this Motion, because the Opposition, if successful, would be more

  523
  in the interests of the supporters of the Bill than of its opponents. To his mind, the temperance party would be the more likely to object, because if the Motion was not passed, the charge would come upon the levy. For his part, he gladly welcomed the Government's putting this charge upon the Exchequer, and he thought it was a step in the right direction.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Solicitor-General would doubtless bear in mind that it was the exception to put a Commission of this class into the Home Office Vote, and it was only fair to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was a separate vote for Special Commissions, in which, under ordinary circumstances, this one would appear. He presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman was satisfied that he could put this Commission in the Home Office Vote.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that Special Commissions and Royal Commissions came under a separate Vote, but he was advised that as this Licensing Commission might be regarded as permanent, at least for fourteen years, there would be no difficulty in putting it into the Home Office Vote in the same way as the Prisons Commission was dealt with.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that this new fangled system of officialism which had taken the place of common law had been adopted to a much greater extent by the present Government than by any of its predecessors. As to what the expenses were likely to be they had a valuable lesson in the working of the Crofters Commission in Scotland. It had been stated that the crofters cases had been settled at an average cost of 1s. 6d. per case. That statement caused great astonishment to those who knew that the cost of the Crofters Commission was vastly greater than that, and it turned out when an explanation was offered, that all the Prime Minister meant was that the legal cost, so far as the Courts of law were concerned, was 1s. 6d. a case. What had been the expenses of the Crofters Commission, which was analogous to the body they were now setting up?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The illustration seems to be very remote from the matter now before the House.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he only mentioned it to show how much larger than the estimate the cost of a Commission generally was. The cost of the Commission instead of being 1s. 6d. a case turned out to be over £4 for each case. From that example they might see what was likely to be the cost of the Commission established under this Bill.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid it appeared to him they were getting in this discussion hardly adequate information from the Government. It appeared to be setting up an entirely nebulous body which was almost unprecedented, and he did not think it would come under Parliamentary control. He would like a little more information, but the hon. Gentleman appeared to know very little about it himself. Perhaps his colleagues knew a little more. It appeared to be a characteristic of the Bill that there were details in it which members of the Government knew nothing whatever about. They were endeavouring to find out what was in the Bill and what it was brought in for, but the Government could not enlighten them.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 14:
  *MR. G. D. FABER, in moving to omit subsection (1), said the particular objection he took to the clause was that neither the chairman nor the two other Commissioners were required at all, and that it was wilfully imposing upon the already much overburdened resources of this country a serious sum of money to effect no useful object. To show that that criticism was well warranted he only had to turn

  525
  to the Act passed in 1904, under which the compensation fund was set up and the extinction of licences was provided for, and the cost of the working of that Act was not one farthing to the country. The licensing justices and Quarter Sessions did the work of that Act.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is moving to omit subsection (1), I do not see that his observations have any connection with the subsection, which merely states that the Licensing Commission shall consist of so-and-so.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid he was arguing that no Commission was required. Unless the Act of 1904 had been ruthlessly upset there would be no necessity for any Commissioners.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That, again, is not in order. We have already got the Licensing Commission in the Bill. All this does is to say it shall consist of so-and-so.
  *MR. G. D. FABER: The appointment of these Commissioners and the salaries to be paid to them, in view of all the circumstances of the case—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry again to interrupt, but the salaries do not come in subsection (1).
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINcalled attention to the description of the clauses printed on the margin of the Bill. Clause 12, where the Licensing Commission was previously mentioned, came under the heading "Financial Provision," and was entitled "Payment of Compensation by Licensing Commissioners," and that was the subject which was debated on that clause. They could not, and did not, debate on it the real question of whether a Licensing Commission was required at all. He submitted that this was the first place where they really had an opportunity of discussing the question whether a Licensing Commission was required.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Licensing Commission is mentioned in many clauses already. There must be a Licensing Commission. We are dealing only with
  526
  subsection (1). It is not a question whether the clause stand part. It is a question of whom the Licensing Commission shall consist.
  MR. BONAR LAW: May I press the point further? This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing whether or not a Commission is necessary. The fact that certain things are to be done by a Commission has been mentioned incidentally, but this is the first time that the question whether or not a Commission is necessary has been or could have been raised.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland): Is it not the case that yesterday on Clause 12 we discussed very fully the necessity of having a Licensing Commission as a consequence of the arrangement made for the statutory reduction in Clause 1? The Leader of the Opposition and I, among others, referred to it also.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members desire to discuss the question whether there shall be a Licensing Commission or not they must do it having regard to what is already in the Bill. I called the hon. Member to order because he was transgressing in that respect.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid he cheerfully accepted the Chairman's ruling, though it would lessen the number of his observations. Objecting as he did to the Commissioners altogether, he could only say that if there had to be any Commissioners he would minimise the evil and have as few as possible.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that if the Chairman had finally settled it he would not say any more, but he would like to submit that it seemed to them that his ruling ought to be reconsidered. As he understood it it amounted to this, that the fact that the Licensing Commission had been incidentally mentioned previously in the Bill prevented their discussing a clause which was specially headed "Appointment of Licensing Commission." It would be a very strong measure to prevent the whole subject of

  527
  whether or not a Commission was necessary being raised under the clause, and if it was to be raised under the clause, the natural way to do it was on this subsection which was the only one specially appointing the Commission.
  SIR S. EVANSsubmitted that the clauses which had already dealt with the Commission had dealt with it not incidentally but had actually imposed heavy duties on it—Clauses 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 13. The only question was the constitution of the body and the fact of its being appointed by His Majesty.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked if the whole question could not be raised on the Motion "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is my ruling. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich I think my ruling has been misunderstood. I cannot shut my eyes to what is in the Bill, and subsection (1) deals only with the composition of the Licensing Commission. "We must have regard to what is already in the Bill.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that as a discussion would be permitted on the clause he did not press the point.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not altogether agree with the view put forward by his hon. friend behind him. If there was to be a Commission of this kind entrusted with powers so vast, whether regarded from the point of view of the public generally or of the individual whose interests were materially involved, he would be very sorry to see the Commission composed of a single dictator. Much as he deprecated the appointment of three Commissioners he would still more deprecate the appointment of a single person to exercise all this power. Who were these three Commissioners to be? Most extensive and unheard of powers had been conferred upon them. The licensing justices in every area were subject to their control and approval, and every scheme adopted came under the review of this body and had to satisfy them before it could be put into force. If
  528
  the Commissioners did not approve of a scheme they could send it back to the magistrates for revision, and if the magistrates were in default then the Commissioners could prepare their own scheme. The licensing justices were quite an unnecessary wheel in the Government coach. These Commissioners had powers of practically unlimited taxation upon a certain class of the community. It was rather a large order for the House of Commons to part with its taxation power to a Commission of three, but to ask them to part with it in favour of an unknown Commission, of whose qualifications they knew nothing, was asking them to go a great deal too far. The time had arrived when the Committee ought to be taken into the confidence of the Government, and they should be informed who the Commissioners were to be. He could cite eloquent appeals made by hon. Members opposite when in opposition, urging the Government to disclose the names of the gentlemen who were to constitute certain Commissions. They had a right before parting with this subsection to know who the three gentlemen were to whom these enormous powers were going to be given.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid it was not advisable to restrict the number of the Commissioners to one, and on this point he welcomed the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. The Commissioners would have to give their consent to new licences, they had power to modify schemes to control the reduction of licences in Wales beyond the statutory reduction, to deal with optional reduction, and many other subsidiary powers. Those were very extensive powers, and he only mentioned them to show that one could not possibly do the work. He did not think it was the practice where Commissioners were appointed—it certainly was not the invariable practice—to name the Commissioners. Where they had been named it was not the rule but the exception. In the case of the University Commissioners for Ireland the names were not inserted or mentioned until the Bill had gone to another place. He was not in a position to state the names in this case, and he

  529
  did not know that anybody else was. No doubt the Prime Minister would take into consideration the appeals which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, if during the subsequent stages of the Bill it was thought to be in the public interest that the names of the Commissioners should be disclosed, no doubt they would be given to the Committee. Meantime he urged the Committee to adhere to the usual practice.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that in the case of the precedent quoted by the Solicitor-General an assurance was given that the names of the Commissioners would be given before Parliament parted with the Bill. In the case of the Local Government Bill of 1888 not only were the names inserted, but he was inclined to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite took an extremely active part in impressing upon the Government that it would be a monstrous thing to appoint Commissioners without letting Parliament know who they were. He thought the Solicitor-General had, with his usual courtesy, tried to meet them. They had not, however, received any promise that the names would be disclosed, and yet they were asked to part with this subsection merely with an assurance that the matter would be brought to the notice of the Prime Minister. He thought that was most unsatisfactory. One of the reasons why it had been held that a Cabinet Minister ought always to be present on the Treasury Bench was in order that when a definite question of this kind was put a statement could be made on behalf of the Government. This was not a question of trusting the Government or accepting the assurances of the Solicitor-General. They were prepared to trust the Government—within very narrow limits—and they accepted the Solicitor-General's assurance because they knew he would carry it out in the letter and in the spirit. It was not a question of the good faith of the Solicitor-General. Apart from this subsection the Committee would probably never have an opportunity of debating the question again until the Report stage, and they would not be able to elicit any further information.
  530
  His right hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire had pointed out that this Commission was to be placed in an extraordinary position. It would be able to override local opinion and the local authority, and to dominate practically the whole of the country in regard to licences. If the Solicitor-General was unable to give the names now, he should be in a position to state when they would be given.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly reasonable. It had been the practice on the Report stage of a Bill to give the names. He could assure hon. Members that the names would be given before the Bill left the House.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not believe that three Commissioners would be sufficient for the work to be placed upon them. The Solicitor-General had stated that in his opinion three was the right number. He himself admitted quite frankly that he did not believe in any very large body. He believed that the smaller the body the better the deliberations, but when they were putting into the hands of the Commission these enormous powers the number should be larger. It should be remembered that the three Commissioners would not be always able to be present. If one of the Commissioners was absent through illness, two would have to go on with the business. He thought that too few. The Commission should have consisted of a chairman, a deputy-chairman, and two Commissioners. In that way they would have had a better tribunal, and one which would have more commanded the confidence of the people. The Solicitor-General had said that he would report to the Prime Minister the request which had been made, and he did not question the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If when the hon. and learned Gentleman was in opposition, the Solicitor-General of the day had said he would report to the Prime Minister what would he have done? The Prime Minister was not in the House yesterday, and he was not present now, though this was the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. One

  531
  of the greatest attacks made on the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister was that he was not in the House when he ought to have been there. They were deprived of the presence of the Prime Minister in these debates because he was away attending bazaars and other places of amusement, and that placed the Committee at a great disadvantage. In similar circumstances the Solicitor-General when in opposition would have moved the adjournment of the debate. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to request the Prime Minister to be present occasionally at the debates.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he would not have risen but for the remark of the Solicitor-General that there had been no opinion expressed on tint side of the House that the number of Commissioners ought to be increased. He did not know the Government estimate of the work to be done by the Commissioners. The Committee had now heard what they were to do, and he believed that if three archangels from Heaven were appointed they would not be able to get through the work satisfactorily. They had to consider the schemes, and that would involve an immense amount of work. The Commissioners, he supposed, would sit in London. If anyone wished to appeal to them, would he have to come up to London? Were trains to be filled with deputations?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think this is getting rather wide.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid it was absolutely impossible for three men to do the work which was to be placed upon them, and the Government would inevitably have to increase the size of the Commission. If the Commissioners were to sit in London, people from far and near would have to come up to London, and there would be a great deal of absolutely unnecessary expense involved. He hoped for these reasons the Government would not say that there was no opinion on that side that the Commission was not exactly the size it should be.
  MR. GOULDINGsaid the Government had shown consideration for the views expressed on that side by promising to give the names of the Commissioners. He thought three Commissioners would be inadequate. In view of the numerous duties of a far-reaching character which they were to be asked to perform it would be impossible for three Commissioners to do the work satisfactorily. It was proposed that any two gentlemen could proceed with business in the case of the illness of the third. The Commissioners would have to deal with such questions as local veto in Wales, whether the justices were overriding the needs of particular localities, whether schemes were applicable or not, and such work would require that they, if they were to carry the country with them in their decisions, should personally visit the spot and make themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the place. Those who had listened to the debates knew that there was extreme diversity of opinion as to what were the requirements of particular districts. In one case the Commissioners would require to put in the knife severely, while in other cases it would be unwise for them to use the knife at all. Did the Solicitor-General suppose that the Commissioners sitting in London could make themselves adequately acquainted with the conditions in the different localities without visiting them and knowing all the circumstances? How could the Commissioners become conversant with the local requirements unless a sufficient number of them were let loose from headquarters to visit the localities? The duties were far too responsible to be delegated to any individual whose appointment was not sanctioned by Parliament where the manner in which the duties were performed could be brought up for discussion. The Water Board was a mere pigmy undertaking compared with the Licensing Commission. Before the Water Board got to work practically all the details of the purchase had been settled in the Committee-room. In this case the Commission would have to deal with considerable differences of opinion as to the needs of localities. They would have to consider the views put forward by prohibitionists, and on the

  533
  other hand by people who wished to get reasonable refreshment in their localities. It was absolutely farcical to say that justice would be got unless the Commissioners were multiplied considerably. He was not one of those who wished to make additions to permanent officials, but there were cases in which one had to waive his opinions in the interest of justice. When questions in connection with the taking of other people's property were involved there should be no cheeseparing. If the Government did not wish at the beginning of this work to raise a storm, they should show that they were going to meet the susceptibilities of localities by providing a sufficient number of Commissioners.
  MR. G. A. HARDYasked whether it would be possible to appoint a brewer as one of the Commissioners. That was a question which had been asked outside the House. Whether such action would be wise was a matter on which there would naturally be difference of opinion, but there seemed to be a feeling in some quarters that they should not, if he might use the term, spot bar people interested in the trade from being Commissioners.
  MR. H. H. MARKStrusted that the Committee would bear in mind for a moment the extent of the burden and responsibility that was to devolve upon the Commissioners. Their duty was not to prepare schemes in the first instance, but to receive schemes and pass their judgment upon them, to revise them if they required to be revised, and in addition to prepare schemes where the justices failed to prepare them. In other words the Commissioners were practically to supersede the justices throughout the country. The three gentlemen proposed in this section of the clause were to take upon themselves the work now discharged by between 8,000 and 10,000 justices from one end of the country to the other. Making all allowances for the difference in value between amateur and casual labour on the one hand, and professional, skilled, and highly paid labour on the other, he ventured to think that these three gentlemen would have their hands more than full. In addition to revising and preparing
  534
  schemes they would have to deal with the compensation fund now dealt with by the Quarter Sessions throughout the country. And it had to be borne in mind that in connection with the schemes as well as the administration of the compensation fund it would frequently be impossible for them to be in London. They would be ignorant of local conditions, which counted for a good deal in these matters; they would have to go great distances from London neglecting interests here while looking after interests elsewhere. Nothing had been advanced from the other side which met the objection that these Commissioners in numbers—they had yet to speak of their qualifications—would not be in any sense competent to discharge the very important work that would devolve upon them.
  MR. JAMES HOPEasked whether the names of the Commissioners would be put in the Bill on Report or merely be announced at the beginning of the Report stage through the ordinary channels.
  *MR. GLADSTONEsaid they would be announced before the end of Report stage.
  *MR. REMNANTsaid that on the previous day an Amendment was moved from those benches that all schemes should be submitted to the Commission, and he did not see how they could go back from that on which they had divided, and argue that all the new schemes should not be submitted to this Commission. That would entail an enormous amount of work upon the Commission—work which would require not only great skill but adequate local knowledge—and that could not be acquired by three gentlemen sitting in London. It would involve their going to the different localities, to examine them for themselves, and see on the spot the conditions that prevailed. Even if the Government would not make a permanent increase of the Commission, he appealed to them that for the first two or three years they should allow an extra Commissioner to be appointed. Three, with the possibility of one, if not two, being ill, was an

  535
  inadequate number in the first instance. He hoped that the Government would see that the present provision was deficient and that they would prevent as far as they could any possibility of a breakdown when the Bill was brought into operation. In 1904 the present Government then in opposition met the proposal of the then Government to refer these questions to Quarter Sessions, by saying that Quarter Sessions were not in as close touch with local conditions as the local justices. How then could they now say that the proposed Commissioners would have the knowledge indispensable in dealing with licensing questions unless they went down to the localities? Much had been said about the anxiety with which the hon. and learned Gentleman had met the proposals made from the Opposition side of the House. He had accepted one Amendment—subject to approval afterwards. He appealed to him to accept a second Amendment and to increase the number of the Commissioners.
  EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield gave an actual undertaking that the names of the Commissioners would be published before the Report stage.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
  EARL WINTERTONhoped that due care would be taken in the selection of these gentlemen, for after the constant jeers and slurs that they had heard from the other side against the licensed trade and brewers and publicans, they must not suppose that the Government would appoint fanatical teetotallers without serious objection from that side of the House. He hoped the Government would avoid future trouble by being very careful in selecting the Licensing Commissioners.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he was satisfied of the genuineness of the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to increase the number of the Commissioners immediately they found that their remuneration was not to come out of the compensation fund but out of the Imperial Treasury. The duties devolving on the Commission
  536
  were very important, but nevertheless he thought they would be duties the Commissioners would be able to perform with the assistance they would have, because they would have power with the approval of the Secretary of State to appoint or employ such number of officers and assistants as they might think necessary for the purpose. They would be the supreme authority. Let him give some instances of how that worked out in our constitution. The work they would have to do would be nothing like the work which devolved upon his right hon. friend the Home Secretary or the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been at the head of the Local Government Board. He did not know whether the Archbishop of Canterbury had been a member of that Board or merely a member of the Board of Trade. Everybody knew that the head of the Department was the person ultimately responsible. What would follow was that such assistance as the Commissioners required would be given by the officers appointed with the approval of the Secretary of State. He had no doubt that the work would be satisfactorily done. The hon. Member for Holborn had asked him to accept an Amendment. He would be prepared to accept any reasonable Amendment, but there was no Amendment at all before the Committee to increase the number of Commissioners. He, however, could not accept any Amendment which would alter the number they had put in the Bill. He would be very sorry to take away the extreme pleasure which hon. Gentlemen opposite felt in referring to the Commission as the "trio."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the Solicitor-General was generally so courteous that it went against their hearts to criticise his speeches. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must have been thinking of something else when making the speech to which they had just listened. He took as illustrations Government Departments, and he brought in the Archbishop of Canterbury; but the Archbishop could only sit in Council with the other members of the Board of Trade. The illustration bore no parallel whatever to the Licensing Commission. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted

  537
  an analogy he would find it in the Land Commissioners under the Irish Land Act. That was the nearest approach that he could find to the proposal in the Bill. He challenged contradiction—he did not care from what quarter of the House, whether from the Irish Nationalist Party or the Unionist Party—when he said that everybody who knew anything of the administration of the Irish Land Act would admit that nine-tenths of the trouble that arose was due to the action not of the Land Commission itself but of the Assistant Commissioners. They were accused of being now on the side of the landlords and now on that of the tenants, and that led to an immense amount of trouble to the Chief Secretary, because it was always held that the Assistant Commissioners were not fit for their work. The Solicitor-General had let the cat out of the bag in saying that these Licensing Commissioners were to have power to appoint assistants. That was the evil of the whole thing. The Government pretended to give Parliamentary control over the Commissioners; they pretended that they were going to disclose to Parliament who the people would be who would discharge the onerous duties that would fall upon the Commission. But the work would be far too heavy for them, and they would have to appoint sub-commissioners to do the work. What happened in other public Departments? Inspectors were appointed to make inquiries, and on their recommendations the Department acted. The head of the Department only reserved to himself a general discretion of accepting or rejecting the recommendations. But the Licensing Commission was going to appoint inspectors over the heads of Petty Sessions and Quarter Sessions, presumably in direct opposition to the wishes of the locality, for the Commission would have the right to make reductions of licences even although the localities had expressed the opinion that no such reductions were necessary. And how was that to be done? The Assistant Commissioners must make their report to the Commissioners, of whom the Committee at present knew nothing. He objected to the whole thing. He objected to the Commission, which he thought was a scandalous waste of public
  538
  money, because they could get all they wanted, and were getting all they wanted, under the Act of 1904 without any expenditure of public money at all. As he had said before, if the Government of the day were going to impose duties of a very responsible character upon individuals, they ought to see that they had a sufficient number of men to do the work and pay salaries which would secure the best men. The number of the Commissioners was insufficient for the work to be done, and the emolument was insufficient to secure the quality of men they ought to have. He thought the members of the Commission should be much higher in degree, and ought to be paid a much higher salary, in order that those who had to perform those duties should be the best class of men whom they could get for fourteen years. Nobody pretended they could get the best class of men for the salary which they were going to give. They were to have three Commissioners, but he wondered if the Government had gone through the country in divisions in order to see what the duties of these three men would be, which they should be able to discharge with fairness to everybody. It would, in his judgment, be impossible for them to do the work. A disclosure was made by the Solicitor-General that the work would be done by subordinates. [Cries of "No."] Then the hon. and learned Gentleman's whole speech fell to the ground if he did not mean that the work was to be done by subordinates, as it was under the Local Government Board, subject to the President. If he did not mean that, he meant nothing. His only analogy, or the nearest analogy he could get, was the Irish Land Commission, but he would find no consolation in any investigation he made into their work. He was not satisfied with the Commission, either in regard to its numbers or its constitution, and if the hon. Member divided against the subsection he should support him, because he believed that it was part of an unnecessary and unjust Bill. Moreover, the Government, in carrying on their policy, had been niggardly, and had placed an unduly heavy burden on the shoulders of these Commissioners, to whom they were not going to pay sufficient salaries. The

  539
  consequence was that this work, affecting the rights of thousands of people in this country, was not likely to be carried out with the fairness and justice with which it ought to be performed.
  *MR. COURTHOPEasked whether the hon. and learned Solicitor-General or any other Member of the Government had considered the amount of initial work which these Commissioners would have to perform, because he imagined everyone would agree that there was one thing that could not be left to inspectors or subordinates, but which must be done, if it was to be done properly, by the Commissioners, viz., the consideration of the schemes for reduction from the different districts. The Commissioners would have to consider 993 schemes at the very beginning, and he wished to know how three men could get through that amount of work. It was essential that all these schemes should be properly considered and dealt with in the greatest detail, and the point which made it particularly important that the schemes should not be rushed through was the fact that there was no appeal. It was of the utmost importance that full consideration should be given to each scheme. If there was an appeal it would not matter so much, but as it was, it was imperative that the matter should not be hurried. He did not know how long the Commissioners might take for the initial consideration of these schemes, but if they gave them a whole year—and probably they would have to complete the initial work in a much shorter period—and assuming that they would have 250 working days, these three men would have to get through four schemes a day in order to get through all of them in a year. It was quite impossible that this work could be done, having regard to the magnitude of many of these schemes. There would be great boroughs submitting intricate schemes, any one of which would require days of consideration if the details were to be taken into account and a proper decision come to by the Commission. He hoped that the Home Secretary, whom he could not help thinking was more inclined to take these matters into serious account than some of his colleagues—he said it without wishing
  540
  to give any offence to anyone, but some of these questions were dismissed very light-heartedly by some of the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench—might be able to hold out some hope that this Commission would be set up in such a way that they would be able to give due consideration to these 993 schemes. He trusted that there would be a sufficient number of Commissioners to allow for a quorum, so as to take into account the inevitable breaking down of health which this amount of work would bring upon them, and that all the necessary steps would be taken to secure the due performance of their onerous duties.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had remarked that he would leave his hon. friend who advocated four or five Commissioners instead of three, to deal with him as the apostle of economy. He was quite willing to accept the challenge of the hon. and learned Member, and if he would leave him to deal with it, he would convince his hon. friend that the Bill could be more economically carried on by five Commissioners than by the number named in it. With four or five Commissioners they would not want to have so many Assistant Commissioners, and with an increased number they would not only obtain increased efficiency, but save money. The hon. and learned Gentleman thus quite captiously, of course, taunted him with advocating increased expenditure, which was a thing he never did unless he thought they obtained increased efficiency. Under this extra expenditure he thought they would not only get increased expense, but increased efficiency.
  *MR. BARNARDthought it would be very much better if there were five Commissioners, rather than to employ subordinates. The Solicitor-General, in hastily going over the duties of the Commission, had he thought, passed over one which was to his mind perhaps the most important. There were, as the hon. Member had said, about 1,000 licensing districts, and undoubtedly there would be different views in the various districts, and on the different benches, taken of the modifications which, for good reasons or bad, they might think desirable

  541
  to put forward, in the cases of places where there were a large number of visitors from time to time, and it was contemplated that they should not act upon the scale laid down in the Act. It was highly important that questions of that sort, which touched the root principle of the Bill, should be dealt with by the Commissioners themselves and not by subordinates. He personally thought that the Government might very well take into consideration the question of appointing five, as the proposal did not in any way attack the principle of their scheme, or the frame-work of their measure. The Bill would be much more satisfactory if the Amendment were adopted, for the reason among many others which he had mentioned.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought there was great substance in the reasons which had been urged as to the desirability of appointing five Commissioners instead of three. It was obvious that under the Bill the work which would devolve upon these three Commissioners was of so onerous a character, that it was quite impossible that it could be carried out in an efficient or satisfactory manner with the present number. They had heard some vague allusions to sub-commissioners, but what sort of responsibility would they hold? Would their responsibility be that of the Chairman and two Commissioners, or would the sub-commissioners be on exactly the same position as to responsibility as those who were looked upon as being superior in position to themselves? He objected to the whole system of the Licensing Commission, as he thought they were setting up an entirely undemocratic body. The Commission appeared to be responsible to no one, and the nearest analogy to it that he could think of was the Star Chamber. He hoped that the number of the members of this Commission would be increased, and an attempt made to establish it on a more democratic basis.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he rose to answer the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Rye who seemed under some misapprehension that his colleagues did not take a serious view of this matter, but he was quite certain that
  542
  they did. Of course, the Government had considered the question of whether the Commissioners would be competent to perform the work put upon them by the Bill, and he would point out that this was not really so formidable as it seemed. The hon. Member said that there were 993 schemes which would have to be prepared and examined by the Licensing Commission. That was true, but the chief work fell upon the licensing district and upon the licensing justices. They would have to consider in detail the proposals, and then they would in due course forward their schemes to the Commission. With regard, he ventured to say, to a large proportion of these schemes, the work of the Commission would be exceedingly light, as there was no reason to think that the commonsense of the local justices would not suffice for the submission of a scheme which was practical and of a commonsense nature. Therefore, a large number of these schemes would, in fact, give the Commission no difficulty at all. He agreed that certain schemes from the great boroughs and the big licensing districts would involve a large amount of work, but the House must remember that after all the detailed work, so to speak, with regard to all these schemes would be done locally, and so in fact the schemes would come to the Licensing Commission much in the same way as schemes and proposals came forward every day to the heads of big Government Departments, having been thoroughly sifted for final review and settlement. He thought hon. Members must realise how essential it must be for the local licensing justices to do all they could, and what a simple matter it would be for the Licensing Commission to survey a large number of these schemes. It seemed to him that the work of the Commission would not be nearly so arduous as the hon. Member thought.
  MR. BONAR LAWthought the right hon. Gentleman had made an elementary error as to the work that had to be done. The Commissioners had to see that the provisions of the Bill were carried out. It was quite true that the preparation of the scheme lay first of all with the licensing authority, but the Commissioners had the power of over-riding the

  543
  recommendations of the local authority. The original plans might be got from the licensing authorities, but the Commissioners who were responsible would themselves have to see that those plans were properly carried out, and to do that would have to make investigations to see if the schemes were satisfactory to themselves. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had shown that he had not realised in the least the magnitude of the work that had to be done, which was another proof, of which there had been many, that the Government had not troubled themselves very much about this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked why it was the Inland Revenue Commissioners would not accept fourteen years purchase as a reasonable basis upon which to work. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this: that the Inland Revenue would not take that basis because they did not think it was fair. The truth was they would not take it because they did not think there was a ghost of a chance of this Bill's ever becoming law.
  *MR. TALBOTagreed that this was not so easy a matter as the Home Secretary seemed to imagine. His many years experience of licensing law had convinced him that it was one of the most difficult of all the branches of magisterial procedure. When one remembered the extreme delicacy of many of these questions, how they had to reconcile the serious and reasonable demand for the reduction of licences with the equally reasonable objection to the extinction of the licence of this or that particular house, or the diminution of the provision of reasonable refreshment, the difficulties would be seen to be very great. All these things had to be taken into consideration, and the difficulties engendered by them in the minds of those who were engaged in this work were very serious indeed. The Government were making a great mistake in disregarding the voluntary service given in the past by those who knew the locality, its condition, and its requirements. If they were substituting a bureaucratic authority for a local authority let them at any rate see that the bureaucratic authority was equipped with the knowledge it required. It would be impossible for them to carry
  544
  out the duty the Government placed upon them of reducing licences in accordance with the general opinion of the communities with which they dealt without much greater knowledge than they were likely to possess. Possibly it would be said that they would work on the reports of the local authorities. But could these three gentlemen be trusted? If they were men of strict impartiality of course they could, but had the House sufficient confidence in the Government to be sure that these three gentlemen would be strictly and absolutely impartial? If, like the Government, they had a strong bias one way, what would their conduct to the licensing justices be? Speaking from his own knowledge, he could assure hon. Members that in many parts of the country the licensing justices would undertake this task with very heavy and unwilling hearts. Some already thought they had done enough, or at least were advancing sufficiently in the reduction of licences. They were gradually reducing them year by year. But the Commission would say they were not going fast enough and must reduce them more rapidly. That would lead to confusion immediately, and the Commissioners and the local justices would come at once to loggerheads. He regretted that the Government had taken upon themselves this disastrous change in the licensing policy of the country. The Commission, if appointed, would have a heavy task. Let them not think it would be easy. If would be just as hard as the task placed on the education committees and others. They would have to appoint a whole army of assistant commissioners, and if this task was to be carried out with the least possible friction it must not be entered into with a light heart. It was a serious business, and would have to be carried out with full knowledge and after full consideration of the facts.
  *MR. MONTAGUsaid it was not denied on the Ministerial side of the House that the work of the Commission would be fairly heavy. But it was contended that it would be mainly carried out by inspectors, etc., appointed by the Commission; who would be responsible to the Commission which in turn

  545
  would be responsible to Parliament. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were in earnest in thinking the work could be done by the Commissioners themselves neither four nor five would be enough. A very large number would be required. But hon. Members opposite were not serious in their contentions that three Commissioners were not enough. He would prove this. It was shown by the fact that although the debate had continued for some time neither on the Paper nor in their speeches had hon. Gentlemen thought fit to suggest any addition to the number of Commissioners. That itself was a test of the seriousness of their contention. As to the impartiality of the Commissioners the House had some experience of Commissions appointed by the Government and it had never been suggested that any one of the Commissioners appointed or nominated was other than impartial. He instanced the Irish University Act, the Education Bill of 1906, the Small Holdings Act of last year. They were selected with every safeguard against partiality and he did not think the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxford or that of the right hon. Member for the Dublin University yesterday was worthy of the front Opposition bench.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas not quite certain whether the colleagues of the hon. Member who had just sat down would welcome his intervention in the debate. The hon. Gentleman had challenged the sincerity of the contention of the Opposition on the ground that no Amendment had been put upon the Paper. The question was now being discussed. He did not know whether the Government desired that an Amendment should be put down in order that a discussion might be raised at a later period. The hon. Gentleman reflected on his right hon. friend for not placing implicit faith in the selection which the Government had made of the Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Bill. When the hon. Gentleman had had some experience of sitting in Opposition as well as on the Ministerial side of the House he would find that no Opposition was prepared to place implicit confidence in the Government of the day. Hon. Members on the
  546
  Opposition side of the House did not suggest that the Prime Minister was going to perpetrate a party job or do anything dishonourable or discreditable to himself. The justice of the claim of the Opposition was admitted by the Home Secretary who had promised to give the names of the Commissioners on the Report stage. They wanted a little information as to what was exactly meant by the Home Secretary's description of the work which the Commissioners would have to do. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that there would not be much trouble, because a great number of the cases would be in small districts where the schemes would be prepared by a few justices, and they would rarely have occasion to interfere with them or to examine them at all. In the case of big boroughs, however, they would have to go more closely into matters. Did the Home Secretary think that in small districts where there were few justices to decide upon the licences they were to have a free hand, but that in a great city with a larger licensing authority, and where the magistrates were not likely to be less competent or less interested in their duties, they were to have their schemes subjected to a meticulous examination by the Commissioners? If that were so, it was a disadvantage to the big towns and big licensing districts. It was to be presumed that the Commissioners must go into facts brought to their notice in order to ascertain that the intentions of Parliament were being carried out. An extreme teetotaller on the one side, or a person interested in the trade on the other, might represent to the Commissioners that the scheme was not in conformity with the law in one particular or another. Surely the Commissioners would be bound to investigate the circumstances to see whether or not the terms of the Act were being infringed. If they had to do that they would have to take the personal responsibility. It was quite true that they might send their officer down to look into the facts, but the responsibility rested with them of arriving at a decision, and they would have to go into the matter. He was sure that any suggestion that the work was practically to be done by the under officers without real and serious review

  547
  by the Commissioners would be to introduce into the working of the Act the worst results that followed from bureaucratic government. Unless the Commissioners had time to give full consideration to the various schemes he did not think the work could be done either satisfactorily to themselves or in such a way as to carry out the wishes of Parliament.
  *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Government anticipated that the most difficult part of the work of the Commissioners in supervising these schemes would be in respect of modifications under Schedule I. Of course there were modifications which would apply to villages, but he did not suppose that anybody would consider it necessary that the Commissioners should personally go down to the villages in order to ascertain their population and whether two, three, or more public-houses were wanted. These facts would be assumed to be true on statistical information, and the Commissioners would have no trouble in the case of a particular village licence in merely ascertaining whether or not the proposal of the licensing justices was in conformity with the law. The case was very different in the big towns because there the problems were much more difficult, and would have to be considered more closely by the Commissioners. Therefore, as regarded a considerable number of the large boroughs and large licensing places, the duties of the Commissioners would be more arduous than in the smaller districts.
  EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not think the Government were exactly
  grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire for his intervention in the debate. He had begun by throwing a lurid light on what the expenses of the Commissioners were to be. Apparently there was to be an army of inspectors and others who were to do the work of the Commission in the country, and that had been further emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He strongly protested against the refusal of the Government to give them more information on the subject of the Commission, and especially on the subject of inspectors and others who were to be employed by the Commission. He had looked through the Bill and failed to find the slightest reference to the army of inspectors. Apparently the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was in the confidence of the Government, or at any rate he was closely connected with them, and this suggestion which he had thrown out was the suggestion of the Government. They had already voted a sum of money for the purposes of the Commissioners, and apparently they were to have no sort of information as to the number of inspectors who were to be employed or as to what the expense was to be. He thought they were entitled to make a strong protest against this absence of information, and it was a matter for regret that the Prime Minister did not find it possible to be present in the House while this important subject was being discussed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 269; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 303.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, W. P.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Agnew, George William

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Alden, Percy

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Armitage, R.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Cameron, Robert

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brace, William

  Chance, Frederick William

  Barker, John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Branch, James

  Clough, William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brigg, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bright, J. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robinson, S.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Kelley, George D.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lambert, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Duckworth, James

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lever, A. levy (Essex, Harwich

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sears, J. E.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Erskine, David C.

  Lundon, W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Snowden, P.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Maclean, Donald

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gill, A. H.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Massie, J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Menzies, Walter

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Grant, Corrie

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Tomkinson, James

  Gulland, John W.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Toulmin, George

  Hall, Frederick

  Morse, L. L.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Verney, F. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Cap. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

  Vivian, Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Myer, Horatio

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Done'str)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Waring, Walter

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Grady, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitbread, Howard

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Williamson, A.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Jackson, R. S

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  550

  551

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Joseph' Pease and Master of

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bertram, Julius

  Haddock, George B.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanier, Beville

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Clark, George Smith

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walker, Col W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Winterton, Earl

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Young, Samuel

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  George Faber and Sir

  Forster, Henry William

  Oddy, John James

  Frederick Banbury.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the next Amendment † in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield is meant seriously or not, but even if it is meant seriously it is too vague.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: If I were to recite the powers that were actually exercised by the concilium regis ordinarium should I remove the reproach of vagueness?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I have no such Amendment before me, and until I have I cannot say.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he was sure, in moving an Amendment to secure that one of the Commissioners "shall be either a barrister-at-law of at least seven years standing who has had practising experience of licensing law, or a solicitor who has for at least three years since the coming into law of the Licensing Act, 1904, acted as clerk to any bench of
  † The said Amendment proposed that the Commissioners should "be possessed of all such powers as were de facto exercised prior to the year one thousand six hundred and forty-one by the concilium regis ordinarium."
  licensing justices or to any licensing authority," he should have the sympathy and he hoped the approval of the Solicitor-General, who was always loyal to his profession. A good deal had been said about the constitution of the Licensing Commission, but they had had no information as to the qualifications these gentlemen were to have. It was very essential that there should be associated with them some gentleman of legal experience, and especially one who had had experience of the licensing law. The duties of the Commission were very various and onerous. They would have before them the alteration and revision of all schemes for reduction. They would have it in their power to consent to the grant of new licences despite a local veto vote, to an excess of the statutory reduction, to optional reduction, and to the carrying out of local option in Wales. They had also the administration of the compensation fund, the payment of compensation and borrowing on the compensation fund, and it was surely important that one of their number should be experienced in the licensing law. In almost all former cases

  553
  where Parliament had set up a Commission to administer large amounts of property it had been expressly provided that there should be on their body some representation of lawyers. The Ecclesiastical Commission included the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and two Judges of the Admiralty Division. The Lunacy Commission consisted of both legal and medical members, of whom the former must be practising barristers of at least five years standing and the secretary must be a barrister of at least seven, years standing. He had a subsequent Amendment to provide that there should be appointed a secretary of this Commission. The Bill merely empowered a secretary to be appointed. In regard to the Charity Commissioners the same thing applied. They were constituted under 16 and 17 Vict., c. 137, and by Section 1 of the Act two at least of the four Commissioners were required to be barristers of not less than twelve years standing and one of them must be the chairman. Knowing how intricate the law of licensing was he urged on the Government that it was important for these Commissioners to have legal advice among their number and that one at least should be a barrister of experience or a solicitor who had acted as clerk to a bench of licensing justices. There were many who had done so who would be very well qualified to take a position on the Licensing Commission.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words 'and one of such Commissioners shall be either a barrister-at-law of at least seven years standing who has had practising experience of licensing law or a solicitor who has for at least three years since the coming into law of the Licensing Act, 1904, acted as clerk to any bench of licensing justices or to any licensing authority.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSsaid there were many solicitors who would answer to the proposed description who would be qualified for the work, but he did not think it at all necessarily followed that every solicitor who had for three years acted as clerk to these bodies would be a fit and proper
  554
  person to appoint. The truth of the matter was that, although this body would have some judicial functions and ought to act in every matter in a judicial frame of mind, it was really an administrative more than a judicial body, and it would be a pity to limit the choice of members by saying the Government were not to have a free hand except within the terms of the Amendment. They thought it was much better that there should be an absolutely free and unlimited choice. The hon. Member had referred to three Commissions, the constitution of which reinforced his argument. But the Admiralty Judges were only ex officio members and not acting members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Moreover, there were matters of legal technicality to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and there might be reason why some of their body should be barristers. Questions of the very nicest possible legal subtlety came before the Charity Commissioners, and it was no doubt right that there should be some legal members on it. He saw no reason himself for adapting the constitution of the Lunacy Commission to that of the Commission they were setting up. It would be perfectly competent for those who advised His Majesty to appoint as Commissioners persons who would answer to the description of the hon Member's Amendment. The effect of the Amendment, however, would be to make this obligatory and would limit the choice. He thought it would be better to leave them a free hand.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, though not for the reasons he had given to the Committee. He thought it would be quite unnecessary to appoint any lawyer or any prominent solicitor to serve on this Commission. Why was this general knowledge of the law and practice of licensing required? The first duty of the Commissioners would be to forget all they had ever learned about the licensing laws or practice. Previously passed licensing statutes were to be repealed, and the only statute they would have to deal with was the Bill under discussion, and the less one knew about the present law

  555
  the more likely would he be to take an intelligent view of the Bill under discussion. His hon. friend suggested that somebody should be appointed who had been in the habit of dealing with these matters as advisers to local justices. He could not conceive of any justification for that proposal, because every principle known to the law of compensation was torn up by this Bill. Every principle of equity, whether under the Act of 1904 or the Acts which governed payment for property taken, compulsorily, had been deliberately abandoned by the framers of this Act. Why should it be necessary for the people who would have to carry out this Act to have been trained in long-established methods of doing justice? They wanted people with a happy indifference to precedent, ignorant of all that had hitherto been done in giving compensation for market value, and therefore quite ready and happy in the administration of a law which totally ignored the market value of a man's property. He would not press the matter further, and under the circumstances he would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. LAMBTONthought they required not only a lawyer but also a gentleman able to understand the Welsh language, because the Commission would have an immense amount of work to do looking after optional reduction in Wales. The Leader of the Opposition had said that it was not necessary to have anybody acquainted with the law to deal with a Bill like this, which would do away with all law on the licensing question. As a rule the Government appointed those who knew the least about the subject, and he hoped in this case the Solicitor-General would take some pains to see that those who were appointed would be those who understood something about licensing and the habits of the country.
  Amendment negatived.
  *MR. LANE-FOXmoved an Amendment providing that the Commissioners should hold office "by the same tenure as a Judge of the High Court of Justice." He said that whatever tenure was given to these Commissioners it
  556
  should be sufficiently long to make them feel secure and independent of outside criticism. The words which he proposed to move might give them too rigid a tenure, but he moved them in order to ascertain from the Government what that tenure would be, as it was not made clear in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words 'who shall hold office by the same tenure as a Judge of the High Court of Justice.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there in sorted."
  SIR S. EVANSsaid it would not be convenient to make the tenure the same as that of the High Court Judges. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston had put down an Amendment to the effect that the office was to be held during His Majesty's pleasure and those words expressed, what was implied by the method now suggested. The appointments would be made during His Majesty's pleasure, and these were the terms used in the case of all Civil servants. It was intended that the office should be held for fourteen years, or for such longer term as might be necessary to wind up the work allotted under the Bill.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he very much disliked the proposal to which the Solicitor-General had given expression, that these Commissioners should hold office at the pleasure of His Majesty, which really meant during the pleasure of the Government of the day. Those gentlemen were going to discharge enormously responsible functions, and upon their decisions would depend the fortunes of a great number of their fellow subjects. In many respects they had to discharge what were, in their nature, judicial functions and they were taking the place of a judicial body which had hitherto carried out functions of a somewhat similar character. They were creating a judicial body of enormous power upon whose decisions a very great deal of the property of the country might easily depend. Judicial powers should always be sharply divided from executive powers,

  557
  and they ought to give to these Commissioners such a tenure of office as would make them practically independent of the Government of the day. Personally, he protested very strongly against the increasing habit of the present Government of creating ad hoc tribunals to take the place of existing tribunals. He could conceive a House of Commons containing a large teetotal majority and the Licensing Commission in the proper exercise of their duty giving some decision not in accord with the views of that majority. What would happen? A Motion would probably be made by some member of the majority disapproving of the action of the Commissioners, and the Government would have either to run the risk of a party defeat or to direct the removal of the Commissioners. The system was fundamentally wrong. The Government had already conferred upon the Local Government Board judicial powers under the Pensions Act, and the Housing Act. This was a very much more serious question than hon. Members seemed to think, for it was a question of the first possible importance. Everybody who had read elementary English history knew that the greatest reform of the 1688 revolution was that of making the Judges independent of the Government of the day. He was very strongly of opinion that some substantial tenure should be given to the Licensing Commissioners which would make them independent of the passing majority of the House of Commons. He appealed to the Committee seriously to consider whether it was wise to continue sanctioning the creation of new tribunals like the Licensing Commission. That was a most essential thing, and he appealed to the Government to do something to meet the legitimate objection raised by his hon. friend who moved the Amendment.
  MR. RAWLINSONrenewed the protest he had made in what he termed the "unfavourable circumstances" of the previous evening against the appointment of a quasi-judicial tribunal of this sort, and said it was the worst possible form of tribunal which could be set up. In this case it would be a tribunal made up of civil servants responsible to the Government
  558
  and the party that appointed them. It was not fair to put the Commissioners in that position. In such cases there was insensible pressure brought to bear upon the people appointed, and it was certainly desirable that if possible anything of that nature should be avoided. This was a question which went far beyond the particular Bill now before the Committee. It was a bad system in itself, and it should be resorted to only in exceedingly exceptional circumstances. If the House had made up its mind that this was to be a Commission of Civil servants, the least thing they could do would be to give them fixity of tenure for fourteen years to secure independence for that period. The present Government had not shown too great a desire to back up the Judges who had been appointed in Ireland. There were already difficulties enough in the way of people who were properly appointed, but if they appointed judicial officers directly responsible to the Government of the day, when possibly party feeling might run high, these officers would be less likely to receive the support of the Government in the discharge of their duties. The public would think that they were liable to bias because of the influence upon them of the opinions of the Government that appointed them.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that there was nothing in the functions of this Commission which could be compared with the functions of a Judge. Those functions were undoubtedly responsible, but it could not for a moment be contended that they were judicial. They were entirely administrative and financial, and it was a misnomer to say they were judicial.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid he only rose to correct what he thought was a want of knowledge which the hon. Gentleman opposite had displayed of his own Bill. He had said that the functions of the Commissioners were not judicial. How could the hon. Member make such a statement? Supposing the question arose whether or not a big hotel was to get a licence, it remained absolutely in the discretion of the Commissioners whether it was to be given or not. Was that not a judicial

  559
  function when it dealt with immense sums of money? He maintained that the functions were judicial, and that they were to be carried out by no process known to the law. A Judge obtained his position because he had risen to a position of eminence in the law; the process by which he gave his judgments was known, and anyone who became a Judge could be trusted to exercise his functions fairly, and, therefore, it was admitted that his position should be secure. But what guarantee had they that the men who were to exercise these functions would be of the same standard as Judges? If the Commissioners were to be lawyers, how were they going to get a good lawyer at £1,200 a year?
  SIR S. EVANS: Lots of them.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid then they had not shown that they were good lawyers, or they would make more. A dictatorship of fourteen years might be all right if they were sure of the dictator, but it might be a very bad thing if they were not.
  SIR S. EVANScontroverted the suggestion that a good lawyer could not be secured for the salary given, and denied that the duties devolving upon the Commissioners were judicial. He would remind the House of one notable case of a law reporter who became one of the most eminent Judges this country had ever known. He referred to Lord Blackburn, who hardly ever opened his mouth in Court.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would read the reports of some of the most important law cases of the day, he would find that though Lord Blackburn had a comparatively restricted practice he was in some of the most important cases.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that hon. Gentlemen opposite were quite wrong in saying that the duties devolving on the Commissioners would be judicial duties. They would be administrative duties purely and simply, but they would be carried out in a manner that might be described as judicial. The Committee would remember that even the licensing justices had been declared not
  560
  to be a Court in a judicial sense. The Commissioners would have nothing to do with discriminating between one public-house and another—the duty would be performed by the justices with their local knowledge.
  MR. G. D. FABERsaid that if the justices failed to prepare a scheme, or failed to select one, the Commissioners were to exercise that function.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that was only the preparation of a scheme, and he did not think the case was ever likely to arise. He did not think that the hon. Member for York would suggest that any body of justices would fail to carry out, or try to carry out, faithfully and honestly the duties entrusted to them by Parliament.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the Commissioners were in any way bound to accept the schemes prepared by the justices.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought it was impossible to reconcile the views held on the two sides of the House as to the duties of the Commissioners. The Government said that the Commissioners could not be compared to Judges, and he was inclined to agree with that. The reason for the existence of Judges was to administer justice, and the reason for the existence of these gentlemen was to administer injustice. He wished to know whether, unless special words were inserted in the Bill, it would not be obligatory to compensate the Commissioners for the abolition of office after the fourteen years had expired. There were in existence conditions which laid down that if the office of a Civil servant was abolished, he was entitled, in the absence of an express contract to the contrary, to claim the abolition terms.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was another point which ought to be considered. The Government meant to make these gentlemen practically Civil servants. In this House they were very chary about attacking or criticising Civil servants. What they did was to attack or criticise the Parliamentary head of the department in which the Civil servants carried on their duties; they regarded the

  561
  Parliamentary head as being responsible for the work of the Department, and he it was who had to defend his office. He understood that the Vote for the salaries of these new Civil servants was to be put down under the Home Office Vote. Was the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be in any sense responsible to Parliament for their action? Was he to have any power of supervision or control? Did any responsibility to Parliament lie with him for the manner in which these gentlemen carried out their functions? If not, they would have Civil servants who, by the very terms of the case were not Civil servants, like gentlemen who worked in the Home Office, or the Colonial or Foreign Offices. They were gentlemen who were Civil servants and yet had no Parliamentary chief. He believed there was no precedent for that. There might be, because he had not thoroughly examined the case; but he was quite sure that such a precedent should not be set up, least of all when those gentlemen were to carry out these functions and for large pay. What was to be the position of those gentlemen? A Vote might be put down on a given Supply night, say the Home Office Vote. A strong attack might be made on the way these gentlemen distributed the funds at their disposal, giving a preference to one district over another, and it might be alleged that their action was open to severe censure. Was the Home Secretary to be responsible for their action? Or was he going merely to hold a brief for them? Was he to say: "The reason, I understand, for their doing so-and-so is such-and-such. I am informed that the motive of these gentlemen is the following. I have had no opportunity of looking into the case. If injustice has been done I am not to blame. All that I can do is to inform the Committee of Supply what their defence is." He ventured to say that that would be extremely inconvenient both for the Secretary of State, and for those gentlemen.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that he could not see that the right hon. Gentleman could connect his argument with the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment merely applied to the Commissioners holding office by the same
  562
  tenure as a member of the High Court of Justice. The right hon. Gentleman would he in order when they came to consider the clause as a whole.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought he was very strictly in order, because there were two alternatives before the Committee, judicial tenure or Civil Service tenure. He had no desire to prolong the debate, but as he thought the matter was of great importance, if it were more relevant when they came to consider the clause as a whole, he would then ask for a reply from the Government.
  MR. GOULDINGsaid he could not follow the Solicitor-General when he said that the Commissioners had only administrative authority. He should have thought that their authority was both judicial and administrative. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 distinctly said—
  "If the grant of any new licence has been confirmed in contravention of this section the Commissioners shall declare that that licence is invalid."
  There could not be a clearer case than that showing that their function was judicial. He was bound to say that the whole position was very confused, for they proposed to mix up great powers and duties in the same body of men. He insisted that the House must keep some control over them, because they were the Supreme Court of Appeal and their decision was final.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid it seemed to him that the Committee was now debating the question when was a Judge not a Judge—when was a Commissioner not a Judge. The Solicitor-General contended that the duties of the Commissioners were not judicial at all to an appreciable extent, but purely administrative. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman looked at subsection (4) of Clause 6, he would see that some of the duties were judicial as well as administrative. That subsection said:—
  "Every scheme prepared, and every revision of a scheme made by the licensing justices under this section shall be submitted as soon as practicable to the Licensing Commissioners for their approval."
  They were to give their judicial opinion as to whether the scheme submitted to

  563
  them properly carried out the Act or not. The words were:—
  "The Commission shall consider the scheme or revision, and may, after consultation with the licensing justices, make such alterations, if any, therein as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of properly carrying into effect this Act."
  That seemed to be purely judicial so far as those duties went. He did not support the Amendment moved from the other side of the House, for it placed these Commissioners in too lofty a position to give them the same tenure of office as a Judge of the High Court. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in contending that they could not get a good lawyer for a salary of £1,200 a year. He believed that if the fact of such an appointment being open was made known to the Bar, there would be a large number of applications for it from good lawyers. He insisted, however, that the Commissioners should be put in an entirely independent position, not subject to be turned out of office at the caprice of a majority of this House, and not subject to undue pressure either by the brewers and the licensed trade, or by the teetotal party.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the functions of the Commissioners were not judicial, but he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LAMBTONmoved to add to the first subsection the words "No person shall be appointed to the Licensing Commission who has held a seat in the present Parliament." This, he said, was a constitutional question, because the Commissioners had by the sense of the House been declared to be a judicial body—although the Solicitor-General had thrown some doubt about it—as well as an administrative body. As his hon. friend had pointed out, it was a maxim of our Constitution that judicial should be separated from executive functions. That was one of the principles laid down by the glorious Revolution of 1688, and that principle should be maintained in
  564
  this Bill. It was possible that some Member of Parliament might be appointed as one of the Commissioners—a Member who had helped to pass the Bill, and who had laid down conditions in it, not entirely in a judicial frame of mind but actuated by Party passion and partisanship, and perhaps ignorance of the subject. There were three schools of thought in the House on the Licensing Bill. There was the teetotal school; a Government school which seemed to think of nothing but of obtaining the monopoly value; and there was the third school, which sat on the Opposition side of the House, the temperance school, which did not believe in coercive measures, in extraordinary sumptuary laws, or in the idea of making people sober by Act of Parliament. It was almost impossible to have a man of impartial mind who had sat in this Parliament. If the Solicitor-General would accept his Amendment it would relieve some anxiety in the country. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 5, at the end, to insert the words 'but no gentleman who has hold a seat in the present Parliament shall be appointed a Commissioner.'"—(Mr. Lambton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSdisputed the idea of the hon. Member that no Member of that House could bring an impartial mind to bear upon the duties of a Commissioner, under this Bill, if he were appointed.
  MR. LAMBTONdenied that he said so. All he said was that they could not get an impartial witness to his own act.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he was sure that there was one hon. Member who would bring an impartial mind to bear upon his duties, and that was the hon. Member himself. He was sure that if he had the offer to make and were successful enough to get the hon. Member's acceptance of it, he would be perfectly well satisfied that he had done a very good thing in the interests of the country. He could not accept the Amendment. He did not think there was a precedent for it,

  565
  and he hoped the hon. Member would not ask him for any further argument against it.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that those who had taken part in passing Bills through the House were sometimes surprised at the interpretations which were given to them in a Court of law. It sometimes happened that a measure they carried did not carry out the intention with which they framed it. ["The Kennedy judgment."] He did not think that was a good illustration, because the Kennedy judgment carried out their intentions, because it prevented a man's property being taken away without proper compensation. But he would not go back to the debates of yesterday. He would only say as to intentions that a Judge rightly excluded all such ideas from his mind. Here, however, was a Bill which was full of difficult questions and the Commissioners were to have a latitude very much greater and powers very much larger than those of a Judge. Under the Bill a large amount of valuable property was at stake, and was it possible that a gentleman who had sat in this House and taken part in these discussions should be uninfluenced by his ideas as to the intentions of the framers of the Bill, or what he thought when he voted upon the measure? He thought there was ground for excluding those who had taken part in discussions of this controversial character. He should have thought the Amendment would have been very welcome to His Majesty's Ministers. They could not be anxious to create bye-elections, and it would be such a satisfactory answer to many possible claims, to be able to state that Parliament had put it out of their power to grant them.
  *MR. GRETTONdid not know whether the Government were inclined to make some concession, but the only serious answer they had had to the Amendment was that it was not usual to put a clause of this kind in an Act of Parliament. He thought the point could be met by an undertaking across the floor of this House that no such appointment would be made. If the Government were not prepared to give that
  566
  undertaking and make that concession, he thought it would be necessary to advance further arguments against the proposal that Members of the House should be appointed members of the Commission. Of course, every Government had followers, and often posts and appointments were wanted for those who had not found a place within the Ministry. The formation of any Government, also, must be a disappointment to some of their followers, and, of course, posts of this kind were a solatium to those who were disappointed in regard to a more important position. It was convenient enough for a Government to have posts of this kind with salaries attached, but his hon. friend who moved the Amendment advanced very cogent reasons why Members of the House should not be appointed to exercise the judicial functions which the Commission would have to exercise. It was very important that the Commission should exercise its functions according to the terms of this Bill, in a manner which would inspire confidence, and adhere strictly to the law. There should be no pressure or suspicion of pressure upon them. A Commission formed of Members who had taken part in the discussion and controversies of the Bill would not inspire confidence, as they would not be good judges. It seemed to him that arguments of a sufficient character had been advanced to induce the Government to enter into a self-denying ordinance in this matter.
  MR. NIELDsaid that for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Worcester he desired strongly to support this Amendment. From what the right hon. Member had said it appeared obvious that no person who had taken part in the discussion should be a Commissioner, as he might read into the Bill something of what he gathered was supposed to be the intention. In the Courts Judges refused to receive any assistance from statements made in the House as to the intention of the authors of the Bill. When such evidence was offered the Judges invariably ruled that it was inadmissible; that they could not take any other evidence than that which

  567
  could be reasonably deduced from the words in the measure before them. If ever a Bill had been introduced in this Parliament which had engendered heated feelings and anger it was this Licensing Bill. The statement that all in favour of the Bill were on the side of the angels, and that those who opposed it were on the other side, were a sufficient indication of the feeling that had been raised. The Government should guard against the slightest possibility of any one Member of the House being introduced into the Commission. He had in his hand a copy
  of the Bill which had been carefully examined by a well-known authority on these matters, who had written a book upon them, and he characterised the whole of this clause as monstrous. Therefore, they ought to take care that the administration was in the hands of persons who could not be pointed at as being connected with the framing of the Act.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 252. (Division List No. 304.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Renton, Leslie

  Bockett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birminghm

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacCaw, Willaim J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Winterton, Earl

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Nield, Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, Samuel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—M.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Oddy, John James

  Lambton and Mr. Goulding.

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Clough, William

  Agnew, George William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Brace, William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Armitage, R.

  Branch, James

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brigg, John

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bright, J. A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brocklchurst, W. B.

  Crooks, William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Crossley, William J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Barker, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Beale, W. P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Duckworth, James

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Essex, R. W.

  Layland-Garratt, Sir Francis

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lundon, W.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Findlay, Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Snowden, P.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lynch, H. B.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gill, A. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Stewart Halley (Greenock)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Hall, Frederick

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Massie, J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Walter

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Toulmin, George

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Vivian, Henry

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Walton, Joseph

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Waring, Walter

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.,

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Watt, Henry A.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Radford, G. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rees, J. D.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Jackson, R. S.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, S.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Mr. Joseph Pease and Master

  Kelley, George D.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  of Elibank.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  MR. G. A. HARDYmoved an Amendment that no person financially interested in the liquor trade should be appointed a Commissioner.
  570
  This, he said, was an Amendment urgently desired by a majority of the people outside the House. If the Bill were allowed to pass without this

  571
  disqualification it was thought that at some time or other a great scandal might possibly arise. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 5, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that no person financially interested in the liquor trade shall be appointed a Commissioner.'"—(Mr. G. A. Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words as amended, be there inserted."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the hon. Gentleman would include in his Amendment the words "or anybody connected with a so-called temperance society," or whether his sense of fairness only carried him half-way. Already they had that spectacle on licensing bodies on which members of the trade were not allowed to act, but on which the most rabid and fanatical teetotallers were. That had caused a great amount of injustice and unfairness, and it was typical of the frame of mind of the so-called temperance party. When moving an Amendment of this kind, where one party who might or might not have strong views were not to be admitted, whilst another party holding, as was well known, fanatical opinions were to be included, was the hon. Gentleman inclined to exclude the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Appleby, the authors of this Bill, as well as those connected with the liquor trade? If he declined to make that addition they would have another instance of the unjust spirit which ruled the whole making up of this Bill, which was becoming the laughing stock of the country.
  MR. GOULDINGmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment the words "or in any of the goods usually sold in licensed establishments." He submitted that with that addition anybody who had any connection with the trade would be excluded. He begged to move.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed—
  "After the word 'trade,' to insert the words 'or in any of the goods usually sold in licensed establishments.'"—(Mr. Goulding.)
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he imagined the original Amendment was moved as a sort of tu quoque to that of the hon. Member for South-east Durham. He hoped his hon. friend would not press it further. They did not want to make any distinctions, invidious or otherwise, in the matter. And the fact that the matter was to be fought out on the Report stage when the names of the Commissioners were to be given was, he thought, a sufficient answer.
  MR. G. A. HARDYbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw refused.
  MR. GRETTONmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment, as amended, to add after the word "establishments," the words "nor anyone who is or has been financially interested in any temperance society." It was, he said, well known that a large body of persons in this country derived considerable profit out of the so-called temperance movement, and it was only right that any exceptions that were made should include those who were in receipt of salary as agents for these societies. A large number of the so-called temperance societies in this country had pledged themselves to take a drastic and extreme course in temperance reform. They could not, therefore, be called unbiassed persons, nor, having regard to the fact that they were or had been in receipt of salaries, could they be called otherwise than financially interested. He begged to move.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed—
  "After the words last inserted, to insert the words 'nor anyone who is or has been financially interested in any temperance society.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That those words as amended, be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSappealed to the House not to divide on the Amendment, for he did not think it would be a dignified course for the House to adopt. The Amendment raised invidious distinctions, and the real answer was that the Prime Minister had undertaken that he would inform the House before the Report stage was completed who the persons were to whom the appointments would be given. To take a division would not add to the dignity of their proceedings.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the dignity of the House, referred to by the Solicitor-General, was not in the least assailed apparently when a former Amendment was put down, and when it was proposed to exclude anybody interested in the licensing trade from
  taking part in Quarter Sessions or Petty Sessions on licensing business. So long as this was a lopsided Amendment to exclude those who were interested in the licensing trade they heard nothing of the dignity of the House; but the moment an addition to the Amendment was proposed to exclude anybody who was financially interested in temperance societies then the whole dignity of the House was threatened.
  SIR S. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I opposed the original Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 237. (Division List No. 305.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Halpin, J.

  Renton, Leslie

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Young, Samuel

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—M

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.

  Nield, Herbert

  Samuel Roberts and M

  Fell, Arthur

  Nolan, Joseph

  Goulding.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beale, W. P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cameron, Robert

  Agnew, George William

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Clough, William

  Armitage, R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brace, William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Branch, James

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brigg, John

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barker, John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cox, Harold

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crooks, William

  Barnes, G. N.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crossley, William J.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Duckworth, James

  Kelley, George D.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lambert, George

  Seely, Colonel

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ferens, T. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Snowden, P.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lynch, H. B.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Maclean, Donald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Callum, John M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marnham, F. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Menzies, Walter

  Toulmin, George

  Hall, Frederick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Walton, Joseph

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Morse, L. L.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waring, Walter

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Myer, Horatio

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Watt, Henry A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, G. H.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hodge, John

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jackson, R. S.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robinson, S.

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Elibank.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  MR. LANE-FOXmoved to leave out subsection (3). He imagined that the salaries which came under that subsection had been put as low as possible because they were to come out of the compensation
  576
  levy. It was only fair to say that the great injustice of this proposal having been recognised, it had now been arranged that the salaries and expenses were to be defrayed from

  577
  Imperial sources. He thought they were now free to say that such salaries should be paid to the Commissioners as were likely to ensure their getting good men who would be independent of any pressure which might be put upon them. The Solicitor-General, in the earlier part of the discussion, had twitted them with being economists who were at the same time ready to increase the number of Commissioners irrespective of the cost to the country. His position and that of most of his hon. friends was that they did not want a Commission at all, but if they were to have one, then, at any rate, let them have good men, and as many men as were necessary for a proper performance of the work. The salaries offered were in very distinct contrast to the salaries of many other Commissioners. The salaries of Judges were higher, though he did not agree that there was nothing judicial in the functions of these Commissioners. But it was surely coming rather too low if they put the salaries of the Commissioners below the level of the ordinary County Court Judge. The Railway and Canal Commissioners got £3,000; Visitors in Lunacy, £2,000; the Lunacy Commissioners, £1,500; and their first secretary from £800 to £1,000, and the chief clerk from £500 to £650. In the case of the Irish Land Commission, the Judicial Commissioner got £3,500; Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, £3,000; Mr. Wrench, £3,500; Mr. Lynch, £2,500; and Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey, £2,000. In connection with the Scottish Land Bill it had been suggested that the Commissioners should receive, the Chairman £2,000, and the others £1,200. In view of the enormous interests involved and the great necessity of securing men who would be above all pressure on either side from those interested in this great question, it was most important to give an ample salary. He did not care whether the Solicitor-General said they were extravagant or not. It was not their fault that this scheme was being created, but if they were going to create it, let them have men who would be independent and beyond suspicion in the public eye. No one suggested there would be anything in the way of monetary corruption. That sort of thing he hoped
  578
  was impossible. But there were many other forms of pressure besides financial, and what they wanted to avoid was appointing any man who would be liable to be subject to any pressure of this kind. He had heard an interjection a short time ago, suggesting that the only possible financial pressure would come from the brewers. But the great temperance organisations were also very wealthy, and were supported by many wealthy men. It was ridiculous for hon. Gentlemen opposite to sit on a pedestal and talk as if all the corruption was on the side of the brewers. It was just as much in the interests of the large manufacturer of ginger beer to promote temperance as it was in the interest of the brewers to promote his own trade, and nobody could blame the large manufacturer of temperance drinks who subscribed to temperance organisations, any more than they could blame brewers for subscribing to their organisations. It was a perfectly honest and business transaction, and it was absurd for Gentlemen opposite to talk as if there was no money on the other side, and the whole possibility of financial pressure must come from the brewing interest. In view of the much larger salaries paid to other Commissioners they would be committing a fatal mistake if they appointed men with a much smaller salary and thereby lowered the position, which ought to be the highest possible.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 10, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  *MR. BARNARDsaid that in the few speeches he had made on the measure lately he had not tried to touch principles, but had endeavoured to deal with what appeared to him to be important details in the machinery of the measure. He fully agreed with everything which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash had just said. They wanted, whether they liked the measure or not, to see that its administrative future was under the best possible auspices, and he could not help

  579
  thinking that the sums of money it was proposed to offer these gentlemen were absolutely inadequate when they compared what other men were paid in many other positions which were not nearly so responsible. If he took London alone, their test administrative men, of whom he knew something, were all paid not less than £2,000 a year. Then there was another feature. The Government thought it desirable that there should be three Commissioners, and therefore, they would have to entrust a good deal of the work to persons who for convenience might be called sub-commissioners or inspectors. The Solicitor-General had said the Local Government Board carried out its business by means of inspectors, but they were sent down into the country very likely to contemplate the prudence or otherwise of some request for a loan, while in this case the class of men with whom the Commissioners or Sub-commissioners would be dealing were quite different. They were the magistrates of the country. Surely they should have some regard to the class of men to be appointed if they had to deal with the 900 different benches in the country. The position of these Commissioners was far and away a more important one than the Solicitor-General had pointed out. It was necessary to remind the House of one point which he had put to the Home Secretary and which the right hon. Gentleman had not answered. In the scheme of reduction there were certain possible exemptions touching upon auxiliary trades, and the necessity to deal with unusual populations coming to the place from outside or what not. The Commissioners had a tremendous judicial responsibility, recollecting that there were 900 different benches of magistrates in the country, some of whom might desire freely to utilise the powers of this Act in the schemes which they put forward, while others might positively resist it, and might very freely interpret the meaning of "auxiliary trades" and be more lavish in deciding what were the special requirements of a particular locality. There were estimated to be 80,000 or 90,000 people continually stopping for weeks at Blackpool, and that was an illustration of cases which would, in his opinion, very largely try
  580
  the Commission. He therefore hoped, and it was in no unfriendly spirit that he put it, that the men who were at the head of this Commission would be chosen, as he was sure they would be, from the most suitable people, but in order to secure this they ought to be remunerated upon a scale similar to that which other professional men were receiving in so many departments of life.
  MR. W. THORNEsaid thrt if the object of the mover of the Amendment was to increase the salaries of the Commissioners he would be prepared to vote against him. If he moved it with the intention of reducing the salaries of the Commissioners he would be able to vote with him. He did not think any comparison could be drawn with Cabinet Ministers and Judges, because they had to devote many hours to their duties, starting early in the morning and sometimes working very late at night. He thought £1,200 per annum was quite sufficient for any man. The Commissioners ought to be in a position to keep themselves in decent comfort, and on this ground he was entirely opposed to paying £1,200. His friends on that side, it appeared, had turned a complete somersault in the last few minutes, because if it had been decided that the Commissioners should be paid out of the compensation fund no doubt they would have been in a position to move a reduction. But simply because the salaries were to be paid from the National Exchequer they wanted to increase the amount. If the men were worth more than £1,200 a year and had to be paid out of the compensation fund they should be worth more if they were paid out of the National Exchequer; but if they were not worth more when paid out of the compensation fund they were not worth any more if paid out of the Exchequer.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsupposed that what the hon. Member meant by saying they had turned a complete somersault was that if the salaries of these gentlemen had to be paid out of the compensation fund they would not be arguing that there ought to be more Commissioners with higher salaries but fewer with less. He was not aware that he had turned any somersault. He hated the Commissioners

  581
  root and branch, and thought it was a wholly mis-conceived and mistaken idea. But they had got beyond that, and the immediate question was what salaries these gentlemen were to receive. He would be perfectly happy on £1,200 a year, but whether he would care to be called upon to discharge such onerous duties for that salary was quite another thing. The President of the Local Government Board once said that £500 a year was enough for any man, but circumstances altered cases. Comparing the salaries of public officials holding similarly responsible positions he painted out that County Court Judges received £1,500 a year, Lunacy Commissioners £1,500, and Lunacy Visitors £2,000 a year. He himself was once offered the position of Master in Lunacy, but at the time he had not been long enough at the Bar, and consequently the lunatics were spared his attentions. That fact, however, showed that he was peculiarly qualified to keep an eye on the front Government bench. He believed the Irish Land Commissioners were paid £3,500 per annum. They ought to consider the salaries proposed to be paid to the Licensing Commissioners in relation to other salaries paid for similar services. It should moreover, be borne in mind that they were not now dealing with a permanent appointment, because the tenure was only for thirteen or fourteen years. That seemed to him to make a great difference, because it might be easier to find a better man if this were made a permanent appointment carrying a pension. But it was nothing of the kind, for at the end of the reduction period the appointments would cease. If he were offered such an appointment, the first thing he would ask after ascertaining the salary would be how long the appointment was for, and if it was only for thirteen years, and he had to give up good permanent work, he would conclude that it was not good enough. On that account the salary ought to be larger. Considering the multifarious duties they would have to perform he thought they ought to receive a salary at least as large as that of a County Court Judge.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that with a great deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash he was entirely in sympathy. When very responsible duties were placed upon the shoulders of men,
  582
  they ought to be compensated accordingly. But he assured the hon. Member for Barkston Ash that these salaries were not fixed with reference to the fund from which the money was to come. The matter had been carefully considered by the Government, and no doubt, if it were the wish of the House, the matter would be reconsidered by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister would also have to look at it from his position as First Lord of the Treasury. There would probably be no lack of fit and competent men at the salaries fixed. But the effect of carrying this Amendment, so far from increasing the salaries, might be that the Commissioners would receive nothing.
  MR. FORSTERsaid he did not agree with the Solicitor-General that the effect of this Amendment would be to deprive the Commissioners of their salaries altogether. The Committee had already decided that the expenses of the Licensing Commission were to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament. He thought his hon. friend had made out a good case for increasing these salaries. The duties and responsibilities of the three Commissioners would be far more arduous than those of the Railway Commissioners, and surely they ought to receive a larger salary. He hoped the Government would consent to such a salary as would enable them to get the services of first-class men.
  *MR. REMNANTexpressed the hope that the Amendment would be carried. He had protested against the whole Bill because, to use the words in which the Prime Minister had described the judgment of one of His Majesty's Judges, he regarded it as vicious from beginning to end. His view was that if they must have a Commission, they ought to have the best men they could possibly get. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that the highest that ought to be paid to any man for his services was £500 a year. An hon. Member below the Gangway had stated that in his view £1,200 a year was as much as any man ought to have. There was distinct progress shown in these different estimates by hon. Gentlemen

  583
  who were proved to belong to the Radical and Socialist Party. He did not believe that £1,200 a year for gentlemen who were likely to be called upon to do this work was too much. They wanted men with the best brains and they had to pay the full market value for them. If they wanted to get the best men they must not hesitate to pay for them. He was sure nobody who had seriously considered the subject would disagree with that. The Commissioners would be called upon to adjudicate on a vast number of intricate technical schemes. There would probably be 993 different schemes brought before them. If the schemes were not brought before them, it would be their duty to prepare schemes themselves and compel the justices to carry them out. They were to be their own judges. The Solicitor-General denied that they would be called upon to adjudicate, but he had not answered the contention that their duties would be judicial under subsection (3) of Section 1 which said—
  "If it appears to the Licensing Commission appointed under this Act that the grant of any new licence has been confirmed in contravention of this section, they shall declare that that licence is invalid. Any excise licence granted in pursuance of a licence so declared invalid shall be void."
  Under that section the duties were more than purely administrative. The gentlemen who would have to adjudicate in these matters ought not to be paid less certainly than County Court Judges. He should like to see them even more highly paid. The Committee had had a curious side-light thrown on what might influence the Government in their appointments in the last division which was solely to decide whether the political followers of the Government, or any Member of this House, should be eligible for the Commission. They knew what had taken place in the last three years since the Government had been in office. Hon Gentlemen opposite had always apparently laid great stress on the appointment of magistrates. They went so far as to call in question the conduct of the Lord Chancellor because he had not appointed sufficient Liberal and Radical magistrates.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only question here is the amount of salary.
  *MR. REMNANTsaid that if the Government were going to appoint political partisans and supporters to these posts, the proposed salaries were far too high, but if they were going to appoint really good, experienced, and impartial men, they would have to pay largely increased sums to those proposed. The appointments made by the Government since they had been in office led to the suspicion that they would appoint those whom they believed to be political supporters.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the question now before the Committee.
  *MR. REMNANTsubmitted that what he had said had a great deal to do with it. If they were going to get the best men, the salaries proposed were not big enough, but if partisans were to be appointed the salaries were too high. If partisans were to be appointed, no salaries should be paid, for if they believed hon. Gentlemen on the other side they would be only too glad to devote their time to the smashing and crushing of the liquor trade.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he wished to ask a question on a point of order, namely, whether, if this Amendment were carried, it would be competent for anyone, Minister or otherwise, to propose another subsection suggesting higher salaries for the Commissioners. This subsection ran—
  "There shall be paid to the Chairman of the Licensing Commission such salary, not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year, and to the ordinary members of the Commission such salary not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, as the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury directs."
  It might be argued that if that were deleted it merely meant the Committee had decided that the Chairman should not have £1,200, and that the others should not have £1,000. If the Committee voted against this subsection, did it mean that the Commissioners were not to be paid at all?
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the subsection were negatived it might imply that they were not to be paid at all, so far as this Bill is concerned.
  MR. JAMES HOPEasked whether another Amendment providing for payment could not be moved.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If competent, it might have to come as a new clause, but in that case it might never be reached. He, however, thought it better to give no opinion on the point, as any proposal to reinstate, with increased salaries, a subsection which had been negatived or to move a new clause on the same subject, was better left to be dealt with by whoever was in the Chair when the proposal was brought forward.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid if this subsection were deleted, he was sure the Government would take care that the new clause was put down as one of their own Amendments. He would, therefore, have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment now before the Committee.
  *MR. LANE-FOXsaid he moved to omit the subsection without moving to insert other words—as it was not competent under the rules of the House for a private Member to move to increase a charge on the Exchequer, believing that, if it were carried, the Government would put the matter right in another section.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he repented the opinion he had expressed that afternoon, that it might be possible to find gentlemen who would be willing to carry out these functions at the salaries indicated in the subsection. He had been converted by the Solicitor-General, because when he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman recite what the duties of the Commissioners would be he became convinced that they would have be to paid at rates higher than those proposed by the Government. The mixture of judicial and administrative duties which the Commissioners were to perform should not be entrusted to men except of first class ability, and they should be paid at first class rates. The Chairman of the National Telephone Company was paid £5,000 a year, and he did not believe that his work was more onerous than that to be imposed on the Chairman of the Commission. Under the first section of the Bill the Commissioners had judicial duties; under the
  586
  second section they had to decide questions mainly judicial, though partly administrative, about the exemption of hotels in the case of new licences; and, under the sixth section, they had to undertake the duty of revising schemes and that, though no doubt largely an administrative matter, was at the same time affected by judicial considerations. Whether they looked upon the work from the administrative or the judicial point of view, there were enormous rights of property involved in the revision of schemes. A County Court Judge could not adjudicate in cases where the sum involved was over £100. When he considered the enormous powers the Licensing Commission would have he concluded there was really no comparison between the responsibilities they would undertake, and the responsibilities imposed on County Court Judges. Then the Commissioners had to be financial experts. Under Clause 9 they had to consider the effect of possible schemes of extra reduction under Welsh local option. That he should have thought would have taxed the intellect of the keenest wits at Lloyd's. Then the Commissioners had to frame a budget, and they were directed to frame it in such a way that they would be able to make their assets and liabilities balance at the end of fourteen years. That was a matter which would tax the efforts of the most expert financiers. Under Clause 13 the Commissioners were apparently to be their own auditors. That imposed another obligation on the Commissioners. They should be completely free from suspicion, because they would be entirely independent of the Auditor-General. Further, they were to decide whether a licence was extinguished on account of public improvements or not. What kind of men were efficient to discharge all those duties and to bear all those responsibilities? Obviously they must have the services of the best men and those they could not get unless they paid them the best market salary. He knew that attacks were often made on Civil servants and those who administered the law, because it was said they acted in a very unbusinesslike manner. Well, in the Civil Service did they offer the same inducements to the best men as did the world of business outside? He was afraid they did not. That arose

  587
  because in Order to get the best market value they did not offer the best market price. They were starting a very dangerous experiment in conferring these enormous powers on the Commission, and they could not by the operation of economic law get the best men for the salaries offered. He would vote for the Amendment.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the hon. Gentleman opposite said that they on that side of the House were inconsistent because they were now going to vote for increased salaries for these Commissioners, whereas they had before said that the salaries were too big. He had no recollection of anybody on that side of the House saying that the salaries were too high. The real point before the Committee was, could they get really good men for the salaries which the Government had put into the Bill? He was the last man to think that they could get a good man merely by paying a large salary, although he knew that that opinion was held by many people. There could be no doubt that the salaries of the County Court Judges were larger than those offered under the Bill. Under those circumstances what would ensue? The work put on these gentlemen would be of an extremely arduous character of a quasi-judicial nature, and they naturally wanted a lawyer for one of the posts. Could a good lawyer be got for £1,200 a year? The hon. and learned Solicitor-General said he could, but, with all deference, he did not think so. This was not a permanent appointment; it was only for fourteen years, and he believed no pension would be carried with it. When they came to consider that these three men were going to deal with properties variously estimated at £200,000,000 to £300,000,000 value, it seemed absurd to pay them such small salaries as £1,200 and £1,000. His hon. friend said that he did not suggest that there would be corruption, though remarks had been made about the wealth of the brewers. He happened by accident to see in the Temperance Record that the income of the Temperance Society was £382,000, and that disposed of the argument that the temperance people were poor and utterly incapable of using money for the
  588
  purpose for which unfortunately it was sometimes used. In advocating an increase of the salaries he did not for a moment go in for extravagance. But supposing they paid the Chairman £2,000 and the other gentleman £1,500 for fourteen years that would not amount to a very enormous sum when it was remembered how vast was the amount of money and how vast the interests they had to deal with. He thought the Government in their own interest would be wise to accede to the proposal, because the operation of the Bill, if it became an Act, would be followed by great criticism from, every sort of person—whether teetotaller, temperance reformer or brewer—and if by any chance the Commissioners did not do their duty well the odium which would result would fall on their backs, though it was not his duty to save the Government from the effects of their mistakes. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELwas surprised that the hon. Baronet should have taken the line he had done and had advocated higher salaries for these officers and pensions.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not advocate pensions for the gentlemen. What he said was that they were not going to receive pensions and, therefore, higher salaries should be given on that account.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Baronet must be well aware that if any Member was chosen for the office, he himself was exceedingly likely to be mentioned for that purpose. As the self-denying ordinance proposed earlier in the evening had been rejected that eventuality became all the more possible. In the view of the Government should such an appointment be offered and accepted it would have the double advantage that the finances of the Commission would be in capable hands and that in future Government business would be expedited to an extent which hitherto had been found impossible. He should watch with interest whether the hon. Baronet went into the division lobby in favour of the Amendment seeing that he himself might be so closely concerned.
  MR. BONAE LAWsaid that in view of the alarming contingency that his hon. friend should disappear from the House and others with him they could not do better than begin at once. He thought, however, that this Amendment was a serious one if the Bill was to be treated seriously at all. The question as to the character of the Commissioners would, to a large extent, depend upon the remuneration they received. He ventured to say that they could not get a good lawyer upon the salary named in the Bill, although the Solicitor-General disputed that. He did not for a moment contend that there were not many young lawyers who would be glad of the office and would be quite ready and capable of doing the work well. One of his most intimate friends quite lately told him that he was a far better man and doing better work when he was young than he was doing now. In other words, he was living on his reputation, which many other lawyers besides him were doing. He maintained that such appointments were made on reputations which individuals had earned and not on future capacity. Judged by that test they could not possibly get good men at the salaries offered, certainly not good business men. He was certain they would not get a good business man to take the position. A business man who had been engaged in business for any length of time would not be tempted by such an emolument as this. There was another point which he thought was really a serious one, and which ought not to be left out of account. His hon. friend behind him had pointed out that Civil servants at present did not get salaries equivalent to those which men of the same ability would get outside. They all knew that was true, but they obtained rewards in another direction and were either paid in malt or in meal. A man could be paid either in money or in social position, and our Civil servants undoubtedly enjoyed a social status far higher than they would have if they were in business and received two or three times the salary they did. He did not think that would apply to the Commissioners, because their position was not a permanent one, or one which could be looked upon as a life position. He agreed that the best way to get a
  590
  good man was not by any means to pay a good salary. Boards of directors, he knew, jumped at the conclusion that if they offered a good salary they got a good man, but that was not true. One must use great discrimination, but this was certain, that unless they gave a remuneration which was comparable to the rewards in other professions they would not get men who were fit to discharge the duties of Commissioners under this Bill. If the Government meant business and intended to appoint a Commission in which the public would have confidence, they should appoint one which would have a higher remuneration than that given in this Bill.
  *MR. REESsaid that all the zeal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London for economy had gone by the board and as his own appointment was on the cards he seemed to be in favour of as high a salary as possible. In all seriousness the hon. Baronet said that it had been represented that the temperance party was a poor one, but he believed that if any people saved any money, it would be those who, at every meal, saved half of the cost by not having wine.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member was mistaken. The statement that the temperance party had no money was made by an hon. Member on his own side of the House. He thought they had money.
  *MR. REESsaid in that case he agreed. The hon. Baronet also represented that they were generally incapable, but that was not so. The epithet incapable was generally used with another, which was quite inappropriate to temperance folk. For these reasons he disagreed with the views of the hon. Baronet. Then the hon. Baronet said that barristers and lawyers appointed to these offices would exercise quasi-judicial functions. So far as the attitude of their minds should be judicial, that was true, but that was not a thing which they had to pay for so highly. If by quasi-judicial functions the hon. Baronet meant that the Commissioners would have to display a knowledge of the law and to possess high legal acumen, he

  591
  said that was not required, and in that sense high judicial qualities were not wanted by these Commissioners. The hon. Member for Dulwich practically pointed out that the best lawyers they had were paid at the rate of £1,200 a year, and that they got worse and worse when they received later in life large salaries, and lived upon their reputations. For himself he thought that a very good lawyer could be got for £1,200 a year for the public service.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he did not gather from his graduated scale at what the hon. Member would appraise the proper salary of Law Officers.
  *MR. REESsaid that if his hon. friend wished him to express in any terms the value of his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General, he should be quite unable to do so. He thought his services were beyond price. If he desired him to institute a graduated scale he asked him to perform a task for which he was not fitted. It was not a question of Law Officers of the Crown, but of Licensing Commissioners.
  MR. JAMES HOPEobserved that the hon. Member had said that good lawyers obtained £1,200 a year, but as they rose in their profession, their value became less. He wished to know what they were worth when they were law officers. Was the figure about £250?
  *Mr. REESsaid he was simply referring to an argument of the hon. Member for Dulwich, but he did not say he adopted it. He was going to point out that certain arguments that had been used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were mutually destructive, but he did not adopt them. He did say, however, that lawyers often occupied judicial positions all through the British Empire, in some cases that of Chief Justice, for something very like £1,200 a year. On the question of whether the money would be forth-coming to pay higher salaries he understood from hon. Gentlemen opposite that there was to be a difficulty about making both ends meet. He believed for himself however that there would be no difficulty whatever in getting Commissioners at the
  592
  figure in the Bill, and he thought that everybody would agree that they could get three competent gentlemen for £1,200 and £1,000 apiece. Then the hon. Member for Dulwich said they had to take the standard of the salaries paid in the Civil Service and that although that might be relatively lower, the social status which these servants possessed made up for the difference. There was no profession, however, which gave such an undoubted social status, and which was one of the highest to be connected with, directly or indirectly, as the brewing trade. He could quite easily prove that there was no class of persons who had greater social status, greater rank and position than those connected with the brewing trade, and these gentlemen, the Commissioners, would be indirectly connected with it. He did not think they should be paid more because their status was lower then that of servants of the Crown. Upon the whole, having reviewed briefly the arguments that had been presented by hon. Members opposite, he had to submit that if this Commission was to be set up the salaries proposed by the Government were quite sufficient.
  MR. W. THORNEcalled the attention of the Chairman, as a point of order, to the fact that there were some ladies in the Ladies' Gallery.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,)took no notice of the interruption.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he thoroughly agreed with the contention that certainly this was not the time to add any burden to the national menage, in the way of a number of salaried officials. It was for that reason he objected to this clause, and the appointment of a paid Commission of this sort. But if the Government once insisted upon having such a Commission, with all the expense, it was very bad economy to save a few pence. What, he asked, had these people to do? They had to be constituted as a court of appeal from every licensing bench in the country, and the decisions of the magistrates were to be overruled by this extraordinary tribunal. The justices in other words were to be overruled by Civil

  593
  servants who, from a financial standpoint, were in an inferior position to that of a County Court Judge. Did the Government seriously contemplate setting up a tribunal which was to be a court of appeal upon such a salary as this? Then again, look at the large interests they had to control. The question of whether a particular hotel was to retain its licence involved sometimes many thousands of pounds, and the decisions of these Commissioners upon that sort of question was to be absolutely without any sort of appeal. Was it so unimportant whether the Government obtained the proper type of men for this position? The Under-Secretary, in a very chaffing and amusing speech, suggested the appointment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who was an excellent business man; but that only showed, as he had pointed out the night before, that the Government did not appoint members of a Licensing Commission as they did a Judge, knowing that the eyes of the profession were upon him and them and that there were safeguards about the position. But there was generally some little arrière pensée at the back of the mind of the Government, as was shown by the Under-Secretary stating that they were going to appoint the hon. Member for the City, because he was the very best man and they would be able to get business through more rapidly if he went. That showed that other things besides suitability might enter into the matter, and that a post might be given because of
  private advantage to a Party. There were different ways of paying men, and, as had been pointed out, in addition to money there might also be social status. The question was whether they were going to make these men dependent upon the Government and upon the off chance of getting something more when their duties finished. They were not to be given any fixity of tenure, which was a degrading position for those who had to perform judicial duties of this kind. It was no defence for giving them an inadequate salary, because they might hope to get some social status. That was thoroughly bad. He had always objected to this Commission, as he thought they should not go on adding to the number of salaried officers every year. It was a bad time to do this, but if the Government intended to carry it out, let the people responsible for this work be paid a salary so that they could be independent of the Government, and be in a position to inspire confidence amongst those whose decisions they would have to overrule, and amongst those whose property they would have to deal with in every part of the Kingdom. These people should be of the highest capacity and character, and though he thought he knew one or two men who were fitted for this work he was not sure whether the House would agree with him in the matter.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 306.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Agnew, George William

  Brace, William

  Cox, Harold

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Branch, James

  Crooks, William

  Armitage, R.

  Brigg, John

  Crossley, William J.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bright, J. A.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barker, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cameron, Robert

  Duckworth, James

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Beale, W. P.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Erskine, David C.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lupton, Arnold

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sears, J. E.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Callum, John M.

  Snowden, P.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hall, Frederick

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Marnham, F. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Massie, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tomkinson, James

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Toulmin, George

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Verney, F. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Myer, Horatio

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Walton, Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Williamson, A.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Risdale, E. A.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Robinson, S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Elibank.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Forster, Henry William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balcarres, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Gretton, John

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Halpin, J.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Cave, George

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fell, Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Clark, George Smith

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Hills, J. W.

  596

  597

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renton, Leslie

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Young, Samuel

  Nield, Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Oddy, John James

  Stanier, Beville

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lane-Fox and Mr. Rawlinson.

  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the Amendment he now moved would make it obligatory upon the Licensing Commission to appoint a secretary who should be a barrister or a solicitor experienced in licensing law. At present there was no obligation to appoint a secretary at all. Earlier in the afternoon he had ventured to move an Amendment that one of the Commissioners should be learned in licensing law. That was resisted by the Solicitor-General, but having regard to the expression of willingness by the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept reasonable Amendments he hoped he would not resist this Amendment. Under the Act for the establishing of the Lunacy Commission they were bound to have a barrister of seven years standing who should be established as a Civil servant of the State. It was that precedent he wished the Government to follow. There were many matters connected with this Licensing Commission upon which it would be necessary for them, if they had not a secretary of legal experience, to consult a legal adviser which would entail great expense on the country, but if they had a secretary of legal experience the expense would be largely covered by his salary. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 20, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'way' stand part of the clause.'"
  SIR S. EVANSresisted the Amendment on the grounds, first, that it would tie the hands of the Commission, and, secondly, that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent them appointing a secretary who would answer to the description mentioned in the Amendment if they wished to do so. Further than that, he did not think a close acquaintance with the
  598
  licensing law was at all necessary. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that a knowledge of past licensing law was not necessary for the administration of this Bill. It was not in the least degree necessary that any of the three Commissioners should have any knowledge of the licensing law in order to approve or not of schemes Submitted to them by the licensing justices. He was not decrying the advisability of everybody having some knowledge of the law, or saying that the members of the Commission should not have a knowledge of the licensing law, but it was not necessary, because, in so far as any knowledge of the law was necessary, there was nothing to prevent them from appointing as their secretary a barrister or a solicitor answering to the description of the hon. Member. The main objection to the Amendment was that it would tie the hands of the Commission with reference to the appointment of a secretary. The hon. Member had referred to the case of the Lunacy Commission, but they had to deal with all sorts of questions where it was advisable and even essential that they should have the advantage of legal knowledge. On the other hand, there was the case of the Railway and Canal Commission, a body which had rights dealing with property under the Board of Trade. There was nothing in the Act which made it necessary for that Commission to appoint any secretary. If they had appointed one, he had no doubt they had appointed a man quite capable of filling the office. The Commission would for their own sakes take into consideration the suggestion in the Amendment, but it would not be right to hamper them at all.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERregarded the Amendment as an obviously reasonable one. The Committee differed on a good many

  599
  points, but there was one point on which they could all agree. The licensing law was somewhat complicated and intricate, and it would be the function of this Commission, which would occupy a position of such great authority and responsibility, to administer that law from day to day. He therefore ventured to suggest that the Commission must have upon it some very competent legal element or it must have daily and almost hourly recourse to competent legal advice. An attempt had been made to ensure that one of the three Commissioners should be an accomplished lawyer. That would have been a very desirable course, but it was not accepted by the Committee, and the Commission ran the risk if the Amendment were not accepted of being without any permanent legal assistance or they would have to have constant recourse to outside legal advice. He did not agree with the Solicitor-General that this Commission, having no lawyer upon it and conscious of its limitations, would be ready to take legal advice. His experience was that the more ignorant, the more self-satisfied people were. He thought, therefore, it was extremely probable that they would have three self-satisfied laymen, knowing nothing of the licensing laws which it was their business to carry out, but imagining they knew all about it, who would carry out their important work without any trained legal assistance. For these reasons, he thought the suggestion of his hon. friend highly reasonable, and that it should be made obligatory upon the Commission to appoint a legal secretary.
  MR. NUSSEYthought it was beyond controversy that the Commissioners would have to act in a quasi-judicial capacity on many matters of importance. They might, however, be appointed entirely from lay members of the community and they might elect a lay secretary. If any legal point arose for their determination, and they required legal advice, to whom would they apply? Would they be able to apply to the law officers or to the Home Secretary, or where would they get the advice? In some cases, at any rate, it might be necessary for them to have legal advice to enable them to discharge their difficult duties.
  MR. CARLILEsaid there were two principles in connection with the work of the Commission which rendered it highly desirable that the Amendment should be adopted. It was, in the first place, essential that the decisions of the Commission should be consistent. If they had no secretary with a knowledge of the licensing laws beyond the anomalies contained in this Bill, then they would have to have advice from outside. It might come from many sources and it might consequently be wholly inconsistent. Then it was equally important that there should be continuity of policy, which would be almost certainly wanting if casual and outside advice were obtained from time to time as questions arose. There should be some person attached to the Commission who would know what their decision had been and who would therefore be able and qualified to see that continuity of policy was maintained. If there was to be that public confidence which alone could make the Act work successfully, then the decisions of the Commission must be consistent and there must be continuity of policy. He should therefore support the Amendment if his hon. friend went to a division.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid there was one point which he wished to press upon the attention of the Solicitor-General. In how many cases out of the 993 schemes which would be sent up to the Commission did he imagine there would be proposals which would be ultra vires, or of a character going beyond the provisions of the Licensing Bill? Surely the Solicitor-General had sufficient knowledge of human nature to be quite convinced that a large number—not necessarily a large proportion—of items contained in these schemes would be illegal in some way or other. It would be in the public interest that there should be somebody on the Commission or working in connection with it able to detect these illegalities at once. He did not think that in every case the licensing justices or even their clerks could be absolutely relied on to see that there was nothing that want beyond the law. There should, therefore, be attached to the Commission, somebody

  601
  with the legal knowledge calculated to ensure that difficulties of the kind should not arise.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he could not conceive that there would be any cases where the schemes would be ultra vires, or where there would be any difficulty on the part of the Commissioners in dealing with them; and, even if, here and there, there should be a case where the justices had not taken proper care or legal advice, he could not conceive that the Commission, whatever its personnel might be, would not be able to detect it. If they had any legal difficulty, they would be able to go to the Home Secretary, who would be able to consult the law officers. It might very possibly be that one Commissioner would be a lawyer himself, and if the Commission thought it advisable they could of their own free will appoint a lawyer as secretary. It was merely because they did not think it desirable to compel them to appoint a secretary that they could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid it was agreed on all sides of the House that the remuneration was to be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in order that Parliament might have a right to review the proceedings of the Commissioners. This had been done in pursuance of a pledge given as far back as March last by the Prime Minister. He therefore moved the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 26, at the beginning, to insert the words 'The remuneration and expenses of the Licensing Commission shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JAMES HOPEmoved the insertion of the words, "Every decision of the Licensing Commission shall be subject to an appeal by any person affected to the King's Bench Division, on the grounds of a biassed or unreasonable exercise of
  602
  their powers under this Act." He said the powers of the Commissioners were vast and affected very large interests; there were very large questions as between man and man and between one interest and another, as to which was to be affected, and which was not, which was to suffer and which was to survive. Apart from that there were various nice questions of a judicial or semi-judicial character to be determined. It was not right or fair to give these enormous powers to a set of men without an appeal. Of course, there was the Parliamentary appeal, but they knew how little that was worth—a Parliamentary appeal which could perhaps only be exercised once a year. A number of conflicting cases came forward; it was quite impossible to form anything like an impartial view of even the most important, and in the end the thing was debated and decided on party lines. There ought to be some judicial appeal from the irresponsible judgment of the Commissioners. He did not think there ought to be an appeal in their purely discretionary office. He did not suppose they would find a body able to sit in judgment on their wisdom or as to the expediency of their policy, but on the two grounds of bias and unreasonable exercise an appeal ought to lie. He hoped and trusted that the Commissioners would be men without bias, but such men were very difficult to find in this world. Even with the best intention there was often a latent bias which revealed itself when the moment of action came. When they came to unreasonable exercise, he admitted he was rather influenced by the provision of Section 6 that the schemes should provide for the statutory reduction being distributed reasonably over the reduction period. Who was to be the judge of "reasonably"? Nobody but the Licensing Commissioners. Once they decided that a scheme was reasonable it must be held to be reasonable, yet if they held it to be reasonable a quite excessive reduction might take place within the first few years with very serious financial results to those affected by the compensation levy. There was an enormous interest involved, and it all depended on the construction of the word "reasonably." These three gentlemen ought not to be the sole and final judges of the meaning

  603
  of the word "reasonably." He trusted the Government would see that it was not fair and safe to entrust this enormous weight of work, involving both big questions of policy and nice questions of law, to the sole judgment of these three. In other cases there was a series of appeals up to the highest Court of the realm, and there ought to be at least one here. His legal friends told him that it was an innovation to make bias a ground of appeal, but the whole Licensing Commission was a grave innovation on the rights and property of His Majesty's subjects, and some change in the ordinary legal procedure might be requisite to meet it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 2, at end, to add the words '(10) Every decision of the Licensing Commission shall be subject to an appeal by any person affected to the King's Bench Division on the ground of a biassed or unreasonable exercise of their powers under this Act.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
  Question proposed, That those words be there added."
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERexpressed surprise that the Solicitor-General had not replied to the Amendment. He would have thought that a lawyer of his eminence would have had something to say on this Amendment, and would have experienced some difficulty in finding anything to say against the proposal. If the Amendment were carried the Government would be taking a real step towards reconciling the moderate opinion of the country to the Act. Of the many features that were regarded with dislike and distrust, that which excited the greatest dislike and distrust, perhaps not altogether reasonable, but very strongly
  604
  felt, was that these enormous and novel powers should be vested in this new body of three, not sitting in the localities, but stretching out a long and very powerful arm from London. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department had asked—Why should they not be three in number, why should they not be paid, and where else should they sit except in London? But he believed people did not like the idea, for all that there was an air of reason about it. Their functions were of enormous importance, and they would control and affect enormous pecuniary interests. It seemed strange that anyone who considered himself wronged of 2d. could go to the House of Lords, whereas in this case the vast interests dealt with had no right of appeal. He did not think much of the point, but it might be that there was some novelty in giving the High Court an appeal on the question of reason. He imagined large interests went to the High Court of Justice every day, to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, upon questions whether railway rates, and so forth, were reasonable in amount, which was certainly very analogous to the functions proposed to be entrusted in this matter. This was very different from a proposal to give a general right of appeal. The onus would lie upon the aggrieved person. They need not very seriously consider bias. It was not likely to be proved. The point was unreasonableness, and the applicant would fail unless he could establish to the satisfaction of the Court, not merely that it was a decision which they should not have arrived at, but that it was unreasonable, which was a very difficult thing to prove. This Commission was not trusted in the country, and there was a great dislike to giving one man a right

  605
  to exercise power over another, especially in large matters, without any right of appeal to a higher authority. On the other hand, if there was an institution in this country which was trusted it was the High Court, and he believed if the Commissioners were placed to this extent under its jurisdiction a considerable amount of the feeling which existed against the Bill would be greatly modified.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was sure the Solicitor-General had refrained from enlightening the Committee on the Amendment, because he thought in all sincerity it had no great substantive importance. He would especially direct his attention to the bearing upon this question which he thought was to be found in the short speech he had made on the last Amendment. He had said that the expenses of the Licensing Commission were to be borne out of Votes passed in the House, and that that was in pursuance of a promise made in March. The reason given for the promise was that the House, since it voted the money, should have the power of criticising the action of these Commissioners. That was to say that in making that promise, and in fulfilling it, the Government recognised that the Licensing Commission was a judicial tribunal. But it would be also an administrative body. He had had some experience in connection with Ireland of bodies set up by the House, who exercised a judicious blend of judicial and administrative functions, and it had been a matter of debate ever since he had been in the House whether any such body was acting in a particular case in its administrative or in its judicial capacity. There were two well-known
  606
  avenues of redress. If a judicial body failed to give satisfaction to any person, he had an appeal to the law, and if an administrative officer failed to give satisfaction to any person in the exercise of his duty or was held to have inflicted wrong or damage upon any of His Majesty's subjects, his conduct could be reviewed in that House. When they created a body with both judicial and administrative powers, if any of His Majesty's lieges felt aggrieved and complained they would be told that it was a mere administrative Act, and they ought to bring up their case before Parliament; and if some hon. Member brought their case before Parliament the Minister would probably reply, "You forget that this body is judicial and your remedy is to go to a Court of law." It would be far simpler to put into the Bill some kind of appeal upon certain limited grounds. Whether the ground should be limited to biassed or unreasonable action they could consider later. There ought to be an appeal, and this was necessary if this body was to be held to account either in a Court of law or in the House of Commons. The Government would probably reply that this concession might open up a large field of litigation, but he did not think it would. The persons interested in the trade were subject under its provisions to so many occasions for finding money that he did not think they would go out of their way to spend more money upon a number of fictitious appeals. What might happen was that appeals would be heard and some definition would follow from the judgment in the King's Bench as to what were the judicial functions of this Commission. After a case had been carried to the

  607
  House of Lords it would put an end to a great deal of unredressed injury to a number of their fellow-subjects.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked what the Solicitor-General, as a commonsense man, would say if he were called upon to assure an audience in Wales that this proposal was a just one. He would have to tell his audience that the Licensing Commission controlled practically between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 of other people's property. They possessed almost absolute control, because the safeguard named about the review in Parliament, amounted to nothing. The debate in Parliament might never come on, and even if it did they could only criticise. The other safeguard mentioned was that the Commissioners had to report to Parliament, but that was in regard to work done. The Commissioners had almost unlimited power to make levies to any extent. The Solicitor-General said the schedule was a check, but it was no check whatever. If the Government really thought that the schedule was a check on the Commissioners in making the levie why did the Solicitor-General reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston which sought to make the schedule of that nature? Supposing the licensing justices prepared in a locality a scheme for so many public-houses to be closed. Being local men they would be the best people to ensure that the scheme would be a fair one. The scheme would be sent on to the Licensing Commissioners who could tear it up if they liked. If the Commissioners, instead of adopting the scheme of the licensing justices, decided to impose another scheme they had power to do it, and they would be doing a grave injustice to that
  608
  locality. Surely there ought to be a right of appeal on the part of those aggrieved. It was very unjust that this right of appeal from the decisions of an autocratic body of Commissioners in London, who had powers over such vast amounts of property, should be refused. After all, there was amongst the people of this country a love of justice and fair-play. Suppose this appeal did create litigation, that was better than injustice. Under this clause, whatever injustice was done, the people affected were refused the Englishman's right of appealing to a higher authority.
  SIR S. EVANSreplied that he had no doubt he would be able to persuade a public meeting that the Government proposal was just. The Committee had decided there should be no appeal against the decision of the justices as to the reduction of licences within the statutory number, but there was a right of appeal against refusal to renew under Section 4, and no right of appeal that now existed would be taken away. There would be no appeal against the scheme of the justices, and the Commissioners receiving it would consult the justices upon any modification they might desire to make. There was no reason for an appeal against their action, which would be that of an administrative, not a judicial body, though in the performance of their duties they would act judicially.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that what he asked was whether this body would exercise certain judicial functions, and he understood the Solicitor-General to assent.
  SIR S. EVANSreplied that they were an administrative body, but no

  609
  doubt in the performance of their duties they would act judicially. He had never said they were a judicial tribunal, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to point out a thing they had to do which could be characterised as the act of a judicial tribunal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All administrative actions are subject to review in this House. Will the actions of the Commissioners be subject to review?
  SIR S. EVANS: Most certainly. He thought that had been made perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Basingstoke had said that if the Government would accept the Amendment they would go far to reconcile moderate opinion in the country, but he did not say whether it would reconcile his opinion which was diametrically opposed to that of the Government. The words proposed in the Amendment were very unhappy. Supposing the scheme affected a hundred houses, was each one of those houses to have an appeal? To whom? Was it to be to the King's Bench, and, if so, was it to be to one Judge or a divisional Court? What could the Judges know of the local circumstances affecting the scheme prepared by the local justices? It had been said that everybody who was affected to the extent of 2d. had a right of appeal to the House of Lords. That was totally inaccurate, and it was calculated to mislead those to whom it was addressed. Let him make an appeal to lawyers on the other side of the House. Could anybody cite a precedent for the kind of appeal proposed in this Amendment? No appeal had ever been allowed upon a question of fact; and no question of law could arise in the decisions of the Commissioners.
  610
  Moreover, there was no case in which Parliament had provided an appeal from the "biassed or unreasonable" decision of any Court it had ever set up. He was convinced there was absolutely no necessity for giving an appeal, and certainly he objected most strongly to the grounds given in the Amendment for asking for an appeal.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the Solicitor-General began by saying that he would put before the Committee the arguments which he would be prepared to put before a public meeting. It depended upon the kind of public meeting what effect the arguments would have, but if it consisted of people who examined his arguments, he would wish that he had not addressed them at all. The licensing justices could, if they chose, make themselves the assistants of the assistants of the Commissioners, but if the Committee brought the matter down to hard fact, they would find that the justices had absolutely no power of any kind under the Bill. If they prepared a scheme, the Commissioners might alter it, and there was no appeal from them. If the justices did not prepare a scheme, the Commissioners might prepare one and override them entirely. The Commissioners were to act as judge and jury, and the only power left to the justices was that of acting as executioners. If the justices declined to act in that capacity, this precious Commission would take upon themselves the duty of executioners as well. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there was no instance in law of an appeal except on a question of law, and that here no question of law could be raised. Let the Committee

  611
  consider what the conditions were. This was a tribunal which, under the powers given to them by the Bill, whether they were judicial or administrative, involved the interests of men in large sums of money, and though its decisions were to be given in secret and without hearing the parties concerned, yet no appeal was to be allowed. It would be an absurd injustice that these great interests should be taken away by men receiving £1,000 a year, and without any right of appeal. The word "democracy" had been used very frequently in this House of Commons. He used to think that one of the essences of democracy was decentralisation. But what was the essence of this Bill? In every way the Government had concentrated power in a few hands. The Government were acting in this matter as they had acted in everything else. They had taken the power away from the House of Commons and put it in Downing Street. Seldom had a big Bill like this been piloted through the
  House without a Minister being in attendance. The Prime Minister set up the guillotine and then left.
  MR. LEIF JONESasked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing the guillotine on this Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: He is only in order in discussing this Amendment which applies to the question of an appeal from the Commission.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the fact that the Committee had had no opportunity of discussing this question was an additional reason why there should be some right of appeal from the arbitrary decision of this centralised dictatorship which the Government were setting up.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 292. (Division List No. 307.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ashley, W. W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Keswick, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Barnard, E. B.

  Fell, Arthur

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cave, George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Clark, George Smith

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Oddy, John James

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Percy, Earl

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hills, J. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Warde, Col. G. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanier, Beville

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Renton, Leslie

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Young, Samuel

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  James Hope and Mr. George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  D. Faber.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crooks, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Agnew, George William

  Crossley, William J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Henry, Charles S.

  Armitage, R.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hodge, John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Balfour, Robert

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barker, John

  Duckworth, James

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hudson, Walter

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Essex, R. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Brace, William

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Branch, James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kekewick, Sir George

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Kelley, George D.

  Bright, J. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Brodie, H. C.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Glover, Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lamont, Norman

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Leese, Joseph Sir F. (Accrington

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gulland, John W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Cameron, Robert

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hall, Frederick

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Maclean, Donald

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Harwood, George

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Cox, Harold

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  614

  615

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Toulmin, George

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Verney, F. W.

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Vivian, Henry

  Menzies, Walter

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walton, Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Waring, Walter

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Myer, Horatio

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Sears, J. E.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shackleton, David James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Grady, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williamson, A.

  Partington, Oswald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mr. Joseph Pease and Master

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  of Elibank.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
  Question put, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes,96 (Division List No. 308.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Agnew, George William

  Barker, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brace, William

  Armitage, R.

  Beale, W. P.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Beauchamp, E.

  Branch, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Brigg, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Bright, J. A.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Cameron, Robert

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Chance, Frederick William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Kon., S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cox, Harold

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Dr.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rees, J. D.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolderh'mpt'n

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duckworth, James

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Essex, R. W.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sears, J. E.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Snowden, P.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Maddison, Frederick

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Menzies, Walter

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  618

  619

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Waring, Walter

  Williamson, A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Thorne, William (Hest Ham)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Verney, F. W.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Vivian, Henry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wiles, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Walton, Joseph

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)

  Gretton, John

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Renton, Leslie

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Clark, George Smith

  Keswick, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Young, Samuel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Viscount Valentia.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Forster, Henry William

  Oddy, John James

  Clause 15:

  The Committee divide: Ayes, 291; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 309.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barker, John

  Agnew, George William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barnes, G. N.

  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

  Beale, W. P.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, Frederick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Brace, William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Branch, James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Menzies, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bright, J. A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Cameron, Robert

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Chance, Frederick William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cox, Harold

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Dr.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rees, J. D.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duckworth, James

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bobertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Essex, R. W.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rose, Charles Day

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sears, J. E.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  622

  623

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Toulmin, George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams Llewelyn (Carmarthen

  Snowden, P.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Williamson, A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Stanley, Albert (Stags, N. W.)

  Walton, Joseph

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Waring, Walter

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Joseph Pease and Master

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  of Elibank.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Tomkinson, James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Balfour Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major, R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnard, E. B.

  Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Renton, Leslie

  Beckett, Hon. Garvase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hills, J. W.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Clark, George Smith

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Keswick, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Young, Samuel

  Faber, George Dension (York)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Viscount Valentia.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clause 16:

  The Committee divide:—Ayes, 291; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 310.)

  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Astbury, John Meir

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Barker, John

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Hebert John

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Barnes, G. N.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, Frederick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Brace, William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Branch, James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

  Menzies, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bright, J. A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazel, Dr. A. K.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Cameron, Robert

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Chance, Frederick William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cox, Harold

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Dr.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rees, J. D.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robert, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duckworth, James

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Essex, R. W.

  Layland-Baratt, Sir Francis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  626

  627

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under-Lyne

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Sears, J. E.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Wiles, Thomas

  Seely, Colonel

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

  Toulmin, George

  Williamson, A.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Snowden, P.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Waring, Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Elibank.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnard, E. B.

  Gretton, John

  Renmant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Renton, Leslie

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanier, Beville

  Clark, George Smith

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Keswick, William

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford Univ.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Waldron, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Young, Samuel

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Viscount Valentia.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  Adjourned at eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water. Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. [No. 215.]
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 581. Mauritius. Report for 1907. Presented (by Command), and ordered [to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to Agricultural Holdings in Scotland. Was presented by the Earl Carrington; read 1a, and to be printed. [No. 216.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  LORD BELPER said the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper raised a question of some importance.
  406
  This Bill was the first that he knew of that dealt with the Press quite apart from the public. As far as he was aware, the Press, wherever they were admitted, were admitted in the name of the public, and if for any reason it was desirable during any part of the proceedings of a local authority to clear the room where the meeting was held so that the proceedings should not be public, the public was excluded and with the public also the Press. In the same way, when a Court was cleared the public and the Press went out; the Press did not remain when the public was excluded. That being the case, he thought it was worthy of consideration whether it was wise in a Bill of this sort to ignore the question of the public altogether. In this particular clause only representatives of the Press were referred to, and he believed it was generally recognised that where one particular class of people was mentioned in an Act, other classes were excluded from its provisions. Therefore, if the Press was mentioned in the Bill without any reference to the public the position of the public as having rights to be present at the meetings in question with the Press would be considerably altered. He fully recognised that it was desirable that the Press should have adequate accommodation, representing as they did that portion of the public who could not be present; but there was no reason why the rest of the public should not be admitted as well. He had called attention to this matter on the Second Reading, and the more he considered the question the more undesirable it seemed to him to be that the public should be ignored in the Bill. He moved an Amendment to secure the object he had in view which would make the clause read—
  "The public, including representatives of the Press, shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, at the beginning of sub-section (1) to insert the words 'The public including.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid there was no intention whatever, on the part of anybody interested in the Bill,

  407
  to interfere in any way with the privileges at present enjoyed by the public. If the noble Lord really thought the public would be injured by not being mentioned in the clause, he would be perfectly willing at a later stage to put in a proviso to the effect that—
  "Nothing in this Act shall in any way prejudice the rights of the public to admission."
  It would not be practicable in all cases to carry out the noble Lord's Amendment, seeing that the great majority of local authorities had no room for the public. The county councils and other important municipal authorities possessed large meeting halls in which they were able to accommodate the Press and the public, but this did not apply to many of the smaller authorities. The Bill, he was told, would affect some 7,000 parish councils throughout the country.
  LORD BELPERasked how many of them the Press would attend.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid it was extremely desirable that the Press should have power to attend all of them, and it was with that desire that the Bill had been drawn in its present form. It was not always advisable to allow the public to be present when it was advisable that the Press should be. Recent events in the London County Council made it necessary that the gallery should be cleared, but there was no reason to remove the members of the Press who knew perfectly well how to behave themselves. It was found necessary, he understood, the previous night to clear certain galleries in the House of Commons, but it was not found necessary to clear the Reporters' Gallery. He suggested to the noble Lord that if the Amendment were carried inconveniences might arise of this kind. If the noble Lord would be satisfied with some such proviso as he had adumbrated, he would be glad to arrange the matter with him before the next stage.
  *LORD ALLENDALE, on behalf of the Government, said he wished to support the noble Earl in what he had said. There was no intention of excluding the public, but the Amendment of Lord Belper, which he understood was being moved on behalf of the County Councils
  408
  Association, entirely altered the scope of the Bill. He believed all county councils admitted both the Press and the public, but it was almost impossible to arrange for the public, to be present at meetings of the smaller bodies. He hoped Lord Belper would accept some such proviso as that suggested by Lord Donoughmore.
  LORD BELPERcould not conceive that there would be any difficulty at all in admitting the public as well as the Press even to the meetings of the smaller authorities. What was proposed by the Bill, but what he did not propose with regard to the general public, was that special accommodation should be set aside for the Press. The Press would have that special accommodation, and if there was any available room afterwards the public would be able to come in. The number of people desirous of attending parish council meetings was not likely to be very large. There did not seem to him to be any reason why a Bill which said that the Press should be admitted should not also say that the public should be admitted. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government had said that this Amendment was being moved on behalf of the County Councils Association. That was not so. The point struck him as requiring attention during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore he had put down the Amendment on his own initiative. The other Amendments standing in his name on the Paper, however, were being proposed on behalf of the County Councils Association. As to the proviso which the noble Earl had suggested, it was rather difficult to withdraw an Amendment in favour of something the exact form of which was not before them.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexplained that the proviso which he suggested would, subject to legal revision, read—
  "Nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the rights enjoyed by the public of attending meetings of local authorities."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid there was this objection to that proposal, that it gave the Press an independent status of its own quite apart from the

  409
  public, and that was taken exception to in their Lordships' House on the Second Reading.
  LORD BURGHCLEREdid not think Lord Belper's Amendment would carry out what the noble Lord himself desired. The noble Lord had said that the Press would necessarily be admitted to the meetings of the smaller bodies, and that if there was any room left the public might come in. But the Amendment would provide that the public as well as the representatives of the Press should be admitted to the meetings of every local authority. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried the public would have an equal right with the representatives of the Press.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend on my left pointed out a moment ago that, unless some Amendment of this kind were inserted, the clause would give to the Press a special privilege as distinguished from other classes of society. I think that is true; but, on the other hand, what we have to remember is that this is a Bill which does not purport to deal with the right of access of the public to those meetings, but especially with the right of the Press. Therefore, there does seem to me to be something to be said for dealing with the Press in a special manner. I understand that Lord Donoughmore is quite ready to insert words at another stage of the Bill which would safeguard any rights which the public now habitually exercise, and that, I venture to think, is the more appropriate way of dealing with the point.
  LORD BELPERsaid that, after the discussion that had taken place, he would withdraw his Amendment for the present and wait to see the form which Lord Donoughmore's Amendment would take. His object was that both the Press and the public should have equal rights of entry, but he did not desire that the public should be allowed to take the seats set apart for the Press.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to omit the first part of the sub-
  410
  section declaring that the representatives of the Press should be admitted, in order to insert: "Every local authority shall appoint one or more reporters who shall record the debates and proceedings of such authority." He said that his Amendments on the Paper appeared rather lengthy, but the first Amendment raised the whole question, the others being simply consequential. He thought he could claim Lord Donoughmore as a supporter of his Amendment, because the noble Earl had said that he aimed at the proceedings of every parish council throughout the country being reported. He was perfectly certain that if the noble Earl expected that, he would not get it. He did not much believe in the reporting in the local Press, because he knew what happened. The facts—that was to say, the bare agenda—was no doubt given. It was not necessary to have a Bill of this sort to secure that. Parliament might enact, if it were necessary, that every local authority should allow its agenda to be seen by the public, and then the newspapers could make what extracts they pleased. At present, discussions which took half-an-hour were reported in half-a-dozen lines, and the only discussions which was really reported at length were those of a personal character. If publicity were desirable—and he did not know that it was in the case of the proceedings of every little local authority—it must be secured in another way altogether, namely, by an official report. Official reporting, as they knew, had been a great success wherever it had been tried. The official reporting for Hansard in their Lordships' House he believed all their Lordships would agree was admirably done, and the reporting of Committees upstairs was first-rate. If they desired really adequate reporting of the proceedings of local authorities for the purposes of publicity they must have official reports. He did not himself think that this publicity was at all necessary. Indeed, he was not very much enamoured of his own Amendment, but he took it that the House, by passing the Second Reading of this Bill, had, provisionally, at any rate, expressed the opinion that publicity was desirable, and he had placed his Amendment on the Paper in order to take the view of the House as to whether the

  411
  method he suggested was not the proper one of securing that object. But there was another great objection to the Bill as it stood. It placed the Press in a position it had never held before in this country. The Press, at present, had no official position, so far as he was aware, in England, although he was told it had in Ireland. By this Bill they were proposing to give gentlemen of the Press a status and a right which they had never had before. The Bill did not appear to meet with the approval of the Institute of Journalists. The Institute of Journalists objected to it very much, and the grounds of their objection were so curious that he would ask their Lordships' leave to read a few lines from a Memorandum which had been sent to him by that body—
  "If the measure be placed upon the Statute-book with this title it will be made to appear to judicial, public, and other authorities, and to all whom it will concern, as if there had been no previous provision 'for the admission' of the Press to the meetings in question. Whereas, to present common knowledge, there is, in long-established fact, very effectual provision. It is probably not necessary, in this connection, to inquire into the nature of the forces by which this provision is maintained—whether they include any element of the sanction or support of law, or whether they rest entirely upon the support of public opinion."
  Therefore the Institute of Journalists were already claiming a legal right for Press representatives to be present at the meetings of local authorities. He did not think that assumption should be supported or justified. Why was the Press to be placed in a position in which no other member of the public was placed? It seemed to him that the Press should have exactly the same facilities as the rest of the public—neither more nor less. He objected very much to giving an official status to a set of gentlemen who lived by their excessive inquisitiveness, who were continually forcing themselves into everybody's affairs, who wanted to know what their Lordships took for breakfast, all about their houses, gardens, pictures, and everything else. He actually remembered an instance, not very long ago, where a friend of his had the management of the funeral of a near relative, and, desiring that it should be of a very private character, was made the subject of comment in the local newspaper because of the enormity that no provision for the Press had been made at the funeral, and
  412
  that, therefore, they had been unable to give an adequate account of the proceedings. The tone of those gentlemen was that they had a right to go everywhere and see everything. He was not in favour of giving legal sanction to a class of persons in that temper and frame of mind. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had stated, during the Second Reading discussion, that the decision in the case of the Tenby Corporation v. Mason was to the effect that the Press attended all meetings of local authorities practically on sufferance. He thought that was precisely the position in which the Press should remain. He had yet to learn that there had been experienced any difficulty on the part of the Press in attending the meetings of local authorities, except in this very exceptional instance, where there appeared to have been one newspaper which was distasteful to a number of the members. The method proposed in the Bill was not the right one for securing publicity, and, though not pretending that he was anxious for the appointment of an official reporter in the case of all these local bodies because he thought it was very unnecessary, he had placed his Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of indicating what, in his opinion, was the only proper method of securing that which it had been said was desired.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the beginning of subsection (1) to the word 'Provided' in line 6, and to insert the words 'Every local authority shall appoint one or more reporters who shall record the debates and proceedings of such authority.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the noble Duke had a considerable advantage over him, and one which he did not anticipate that he would have. It appeared that the Institute of Journalists had sent round a Memorandum on the subject of this Bill. He presumed that many of their Lordships had received a copy, but the Institute had been careful not to send him one. He had not, therefore, had an opportunity of perusing it. But he might mention that the Institute of Journalists had nothing whatever to do with this Bill. They had no hand in drafting it, and the Bill was not being promoted on their behalf. In

  413
  the document from which the noble Duke had quoted, it was apparently claimed by the Institute of Journalists that the Press had already a perfect right to attend all meetings of local authorities, but, as the noble Duke had pointed out, the judgment in Tenby Corporation v. Mason supplied a complete answer to that claim. He was told that the Institute of Journalists was a body of 2,500 members, of whom very few had much to do with reporting, and therefore were only a small percentage of the tens of thousands of journalists throughout the country who were intimately interested in the proposals of the Bill. His objection to the noble Duke's Amendment was that it amounted practically to the rejection of the Bill and the substitution of an entirely different measure in its place. The Bill did very little more than regularise and confirm the practice of admitting representatives of the Press to the meetings of local authorities, which was now general throughout the country. The noble Duke would exclude the ordinary Press representatives, and set up a system of official reports. These official reports would, in fact, operate against publicity, for they would not be ready until two or three days after the meeting. The public desired their news quick and consequently these reports would be of no use to the Press at all. It would also be a costly system, and no provision was made in the noble Duke's Amendments for defraying that cost. It would mean the appointment of an official reporter to every one of the 7,000 local authorities in the country.
  LORD FABERsaid it did not follow that if the newspapers were supplied with long official reports of speeches they would publish them. Noble Lords were mistaken if they thought that the mere fact of an official reporter being present and taking down the discussions at the meetings of small parish councils all over the country would mean publicity, unless the Press were heavily paid to insert the reports.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the noble Duke might have somewhat inconvenient results if the Committee
  414
  were to adopt it. My noble friend suggests that throughout the length and breadth of the country we should introduce a system of official reporting, even at the meetings of the smallest local authorities. Now there seems to me to be all the difference in the world between saying to the local Press, "You may be present at these meetings, you may report as much or as little as you please in the interests of publicity," and appointing all over the country reporters upon whom would be imposed the duty of compiling an official record of the proceedings. The noble Duke referred to the manner in which the proceedings in this House are reported, and I am sure we all agree with him that nothing could be more admirable than the manner in which that duty is performed. But does the noble Duke suppose that it would be possible to discover all over the United Kingdom reporters as competent to reproduce faithfully the local discussions which take place as the gentleman who reproduces our Parliamentary debates? I am afraid the result of the change would be this, that you would have all over the country a small army of third or fourth-rate reporters, whose reports, in spite of the absence of skill of those who made them, would be invested with a kind of artificial authority to which they really would not be at all entitled. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend's Amendment.
  *LORD ALLENDALEintimated that the Government were opposed to the Amendment, as they considered it entirely outside the scope of the Bill. It was very doubtful, to his mind, whether the noble Duke's proposal was in order. The Bill might be a good Bill or a bad Bill, but the Amendment had really nothing to do with it. As Lord Donoughmore had pointed out, there were 7,000 parish councils in England and Wales, and he thought it rather absurd that one or more reporters should be appointed solemnly to record their debates at a very considerable expense.
  LORD BELPERhoped the noble Duke Would not press his Amendment. It would really be impracticable in practice, and would involve very heavy

  415
  expense. Moreover, it was quite unnecessary that the discussions at the meetings of small local authorities should be reported at length.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he would withdraw his Amendment with the greatest pleasure. He did not very much believe in it himself. To set up a system of official reporting would be a waste of time and money; but the fact remained that it was the only way of having the proceedings of local authorities properly reported.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to delete from subsection (1) the words "But nothing in this proviso shall empower a local authority to discriminate against the representative of any particular newspaper." He explained that these words were in the Bill before subsections (2) and (3) were added in the House of Commons, and, through an oversight, were not struck out. Sub-section (2) was the really protective provision.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'interest' to the end of the subsection."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend subsection (3) which ran—
  "(3) If any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by any such regulations made as aforesaid, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Board may order such local authority as aforesaid to vary or alter such regulations in such a manner as they may think fit, and no regulations in so far as they are so varied or altered shall be subsequently varied or rescinded by the local authority without the consent of the Board,"
  by omitting the words "feels aggrieved by," and inserting the words "is excluded under." It had been pointed out by Lord Wenlock on the Second Reading that the subsection as at present drafted might give any representative of the Press a right to appeal to the Local Government Board on the ground that he was not comfortable or that the accommodation with which he had been
  416
  provided was not adequate, and endless trouble and confusion would be caused. It was never intended that that should be the effect of the subsection, and the object of his Amendment was to make the point clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words 'feels aggrieved by,' and to insert the words 'is excluded under.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  EARL RUSSELLasked whether the noble Earl was quite sure that the subsection was not intended to refer to the accommodation provided. He had read it as referring exclusively to that. Without it the object of the Bill might be defeated by the provision of accommodation in some distant part of the building in which the reporters could neither write nor hear. In that case they would have no remedy under the Amendment although they would feel aggrieved.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas afraid that in such a case the reporters would have no remedy except what they could possibly secure as electors.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPER, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit subsection (3) altogether, said that, although the Amendment to which the Committee had just agreed made the subsection rather more practicable, it did not remove his objection, which was that it was perfectly impossible, in a matter of this kind, for the Local Government Board to supervise the arrangements made, not only by county councils, but by all the smaller local authorities throughout the country. It was impossible for this duty to be performed at a distance, and the Local Government Board staff had quite enough to do without being sent round the country to see whether reporters might not be provided with better accommodation. He understood that this subsection was inserted at the suggestion of the London County Council. He could quite understand that body desiring in this matter to have an arbitrator on the spot, and in that case there

  417
  would be no difficulty. But it was quite impossible for the Local Government Board to exercise effective control over the accommodation provided throughout the country. He hoped the subsection would not be pressed, as it seemed to him totally unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 23, to page 2, line 5, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Belper.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdefended the subsection. It was necessary to have some safeguard against unfair exclusion. There was a recent case at Tenby where a reporter was excluded on account of his personal opinions. This subsection had been introduced at the desire of the London County Council, their reason being that more reporters might wish to attend the meetings of the Council than accommodation could be provided for. The mere existence of such a safeguard would very often make its actual use in practice unnecessary. The fact that the appeal existed would make local authorities careful to give no cause for appeal. The effect of the subsection would be more indirect than direct, and he did not think there was any fear that the Local Government Board would be overworked as a result of its insertion.
  *LORD ALLENDALEsaid the Local Government Board had no particular desire to undertake the rather ungrateful task of arbitrating between the local authority and the aggrieved Press representative; but, on the other hand, they thought there ought to be some right of appeal. The Local Government Board were, therefore, prepared to accept the position of being the authority to be appealed to. If, however, the noble Lord would prefer some other authority, perhaps he would suggest one, and no doubt his suggestion would receive consideration.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked if local authorities were to find accommodation for any number of Press men who attended?
  LORD BELPER: Yes.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid it seemed so to him. In that case, it would in many instances mean building.
  *LORD FABERthought the noble Duke need not be alarmed. There was not the least likelihood of twenty, thirty, or more reporters rushing to attend a parish council meeting. Reporters only attended the meetings of local authorities when the business was of vital public interest. In the belief that there was no likelihood of there being any such rush as had been referred to, he would vote against the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid the county council over which he presided would find extreme difficulty in accommodating twenty reporters. If it really was the case that the Bill meant that local authorities were to find accommodation, at whatever inconvenience or expense to themselves, for any number of reporters who chose to attend, the provision should be amended in some way.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid he spoke only from memory, but he was under the impression that by the existing law every ratepayer or parish elector already had the right to attend parish council meetings. Therefore, as far as the provision of accommodation was concerned, the existing law enforced that on even the smallest bodies.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHasked what was the use of the Bill if that were so. If every inhabitant could attend the meetings, where was the necessity for reporting them? His county council had sufficient accommodation for the representatives of the Press who attended; but if they were to have a great rush under this Bill were they to go to a large expense in structural alterations? He hoped Lord Belper would divide the Committee on the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREpointed out that the subsection only referred to the exclusion by regulation. The point was that if a local authority

  419
  made a regulation, excluding any individual journalist, he should have a right to appeal. A certain authority recently did make a regulation excluding a certain individual, and there had been other instances.
  LORD BELPERsaid it had come to a pass when Parliament was asked to enact a provision of this kind because one or two authorities had done something exceptional. By this subsection the discretion of county councils with regard to their own buildings was to be placed in the hands of a central authority. Really, grandmotherly legislation was being carried in this way to a ridiculous extreme, and, in order to enter a protest, he would certainly divide the Committee on the Amendment. The noble Lord who represented the Local Government Board had suggested that if he (Lord Belper) did not like the Local Government Board to be the authority to be appealed to, some other authority should be named. That was not his business. But he did contend that people returned by the county to sit upon the county council were fully qualified to make the necessary arrangements in regard to their own council chamber.
  EARL RUSSELLreferred the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the language of the subsection. Lord Donoughmore had said that what might be appealed against was a regulation excluding the reporter or his newspaper. But the words in the subsection were that the regulations which might be appealed against were "regulations made as aforesaid." Those were the regulations contained in subsection 2, and no regulation made under that subsection could possibly exclude the representatives of any newspaper.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that the manner in which the accommodation, referred to in subsection 2, was allotted could easily exclude certain individuals.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdoubted whether, even if the subsection remained as it stood, an increased number of reporters
  420
  would wish to attend the meetings If they did, they would only ask for reasonable accommodation.
  *LORD ALLENDALE, replying to Lord Belper's contention that the Local Government Board could not know the local circumstances, said that if there was an appeal the Board would, of course, send someone down to hold an inquiry and report. They would not capriciously make an order without ascertaining the circumstances.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I confess that what I have heard said in reference to this subsection does not increase my affection for it. It appears to me to involve a great deal of what looks like superfluous legislation, and the question I should like to ask some Member of your Lordships' House who can speak with authority on the legal point is this. We have, in subsection (1), given representatives of the Press the right of being admitted to all these meetings. Suppose you say nothing more after that, and one of these local bodies endeavours to exclude a Press representative, would it not be the case that he would have a remedy at common law without the elaborate precautions proposed to be taken under this subsection? If that is so, then I say leave the sub-section out.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that if he accepted this Amendment now it was only in order that he might consult the London County Council on the subject. He might desire to reintroduce it, confining its operation to London.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE)said he did not presume to address their Lordships on the legal point raised by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition; but he wished to insist upon this, that what the Committee were now discussing could not apply to anything that occurred under subsection (1). The only point before the Committee at the moment was the regulations which could be made under sub-section (2).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend the fourth subsection, which ran—
  "(4) On receiving a written request from the editor or the local representative of any newspaper, the clerk or other responsible officer shall send due notice of the meetings of the local authority to the office of such newspaper or to such local representative,"
  by leaving out the words "or the local representative." This subsection had, he said, met with a great deal of criticism during the Second Reading discussion, and it was to meet that criticism that he had placed on the Paper the Amendments standing in his name to the subsection. The words as they stood were originally inserted because it was felt that the local representative was on the spot and that it would be more convenient that he should be communicated with. It had, however, been suggested that difficulties might arise, and therefore he now proposed to confine the provision to the editor of any newspaper.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'or the local representative.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to insert in subsection (4), after the word "newspaper," the words "ordinarily represented at the meetings of the local authority." He explained that these words were in the Bill as originally drafted, but were accidentally omitted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 7, after the word 'newspaper' to insert the words 'ordinarily represented at the meetings of the local authority.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERthen moved the omission of subsection (4). He explained that this Amendment was put down on behalf of the County Councils Association, but he felt that the Amendment to which the Committee had just
  422
  agreed considerably modified the subsection as it had previously stood. In its old form the subsection enabled any representative of any newspaper throughout the country to call upon the clerk to send him due notice of the meetings of the local authority. The custom of the county council with which he was connected was to send not only notices of the meetings but also the agendas to those newspapers which were habitually represented at the council meetings. He believed that was the practice in the case of county councils throughout the country, and therefore, so far as those bodies were concerned, the provision in the Bill would not alter the present procedure, but would make what was a practice by courtesy a law by statute. He was not competent to say whether the proposal would be met by other local authorities in the same spirit; but, as far as county councils were concerned, he would not be inclined, if those with whom he generally acted and who represented county councils took the same view, to press his Amendment for the entire omission of subsection (4) now that, it had been amended.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 6 to 10, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped this Amendment would be insisted upon. The present practice had been explained by Lord Belper. The county clerk was one of those maids-of-all-work on whom everybody, the Treasury included, thought they had a right to impose duties. The more they heard of this Bill the more absurd its enactments seemed, and on the Third Reading he did not know whether he should not move its rejection.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREalluded to the case of certain councils in Ireland in which the majority continually arranged their meetings at about half-an-hour's notice, in order that important business might be got through without being discussed, and without anybody-knowing anything about it. That was an example of what might happen if this Amendment were carried.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that, with all due respect to the noble Earl, he objected to legislation for England being proposed for the benefit of Ireland. If the provision was to be effective it would prevent meetings being held unless, forsooth, the Press had received sufficient notice. That would seriously interfere with the business of local government.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexplained that the subsection did little more than give a statutory authority to what was already a common practice.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHmoved an Amendment to include within the definition of the phrase "representatives of the Press," "any person qualified as a journalist according to the charter and bye-laws of the Institute of Journalists." He said he had no active connection with the society in question, but had had the honour some ten or twelve years ago of being elected an hon. Fellow with a late Lord Chief Justice of England and an eminent and universally known French novelist and journalist who was also deceased. By the Bill, so far as their Lordships had approved of it, access was secured to accredited representatives of particular newspapers. As he construed the Bill, no Pressman had a title to admission unless he attended as the appointed representative of some particular newspaper. As a matter of fact there were persons, especially in large towns, who were not accredited representatives of a particular newspaper, but carried on journalistic work. They attended the meetings of local authorities and picked up what was of public interest, and this they sent to various newspapers. These journalists were doing useful work, but at present they did not come within the scope of the Bill. Referring to the Institute of Journalists, he said it came into existence some eighteen years ago and possessed the unique distinction of a Charter from the Crown. No other body of journalists had that distinction,
  424
  and the Institute secured that journalists who were admitted to membership should possess the necessary advantages of training and ability to enable them to discharge their work. No doubt other associations might put in a claim for recognition, but they were purely voluntary associations not recognised in the way that the Institute of Journalists was recognised. The body promoting this Bill was organised simply as a trade union, whereas the Institute of Journalists, as he had said, enjoyed a recognised status through the possession of a Royal Charter. He understood that the membership far exceeded the figure stated by the noble Earl; it had about 5,000 members, and no other society of journalists had a membership much above 2,000. He was informed that the society promoting this Bill had only a membership of 1,500. He submitted that the Institute of Journalists had a full claim to recognition in the way proposed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 10, after the word 'newspapers,' to insert the words 'and shall include any person qualified as a journalist according to the charter and bye-laws of the Institute of Journalists.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped the noble Lord would not consider it necessary to press the Amendment. The clause as it stood provided that—
  "The expression 'representatives of the Press' means duly accredited representatives of newspapers and of news agencies systematically carrying on the business of selling and supplying reports and information to newspapers."
  He regretted that he had been misinformed as to the membership of the Institute of Journalists; 2,500 was the number given to him, but he was sure the noble Lord's figure would be correct. But, even with a membership of 5,000, the Institute of Journalists could not claim to include a majority of the journalists who had been carrying on such work as the Committee were considering. He was told that the Institute comprised a great many owners and managers of newspapers, persons interested in literary work and so on, who would not really be concerned in the matter at all. He fully admitted that the Institute of

  425
  Journalists was the largest, the most important, and the oldest journalistic organisation; but he did not see any sufficient ground for giving the Institute a position as a privileged body.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHsaid he was convinced that the practice of the past would continue, and that the journalists in question would be able to secure admission, notwithstanding anything in the Bill. He, therefore, withdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment substituting for the last of the paragraphs defining the expression "local authority" the following:—"Any other local body, board, joint board, or committee which has, or may hereafter have the power to make a rate, and which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority." He explained that county councils in Scotland considered that it was not only unnecessary but undesirable that this power should extend to all meetings of committees and sub-committees and small bodies. They were also afraid that as the clause stood an absolute right would be given to the Press to be present at the meetings of standing joint committees. The substantial intentions of the Bill would not be interfered with by the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, lines 27 to 31, to leave out Paragraph (c), and to insert the following new paragraph: (c) Any other local body, board, joint board, or committee which has or may hereafter have the power to make a rate, and which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdid not object to the change if it was satisfactory to the Scottish Office. He was not competent to judge whether in the case of Scotland the noble Earl's words
  426
  were calculated to attain what he desired; but he had never known the noble Earl wrong on Scottish matters, and therefore would accept the Amendment.
  LORD HERSCHELLsignified the assent of the Scottish Office to the Amendment, but said the expression "impose a rate" would be more in accordance with Scottish phraseology than "make a rate."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNaccepted this verbal alteration.
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcalled attention to subsection (2), which provided that the Act should not extend to Ireland. He could not help remarking upon this subsection. The Bill was Hibernian from beginning to end. It was proposed by an eminent Hibernian, who was most anxious that there should be the fullest publicity in connection with every hole and corner meeting except in Ireland. Why in the world was publicity so desirable everywhere else except in Ireland?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Because we have got it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. [No. 217.]

SMALL HOLDINGS.
LORD MONK-BRETTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what is the period of years which the Local Government Board, under the powers given to them by Section 14 of the Small Holdings Act of 1907, are prepared to authorise for the repayment of loans incurred for the following purposes respectively; Purchase of freehold land; construction of buildings on freehold land; adaptation of freehold land for small holdings; payment of tenant

427
rights; construction of buildings on leasehold land; adaptation of leasehold land for small holdings.
This question is one of some importance to local authorities who have to administer the Small Holdings Act, and as His Majesty's Government have preferred that it should be deferred until to-day, I hope they will be able to give me a direct answer to the Question. It is important to local authorities because they have to recoup out of the rent which they are to charge for small holdings the expense of the equipment of them, and local authorities are unable to fix a rent because they do not know what are the terms for the repayment of these loans. Until they are able to fix the rent they cannot expect applicants to agree to take the holdings, and until they can get the applicants to agree to take the holdings it is a waste of money for the local authority to equip them. Therefore the whole of the administration of the Act is hung up by the fact that the periods for the repayment of these loans are not known.
I notice, from another Question on the Paper, in the name of the Earl of Kimberley, that one county council, at any rate, has rushed in with its scheme before it knew exactly what was going to be the answer to my Question, and is now regretting its precipitancy. I belong to a county council which has been more cautious. That local authority wrote to the Local Government Board and asked practically the questions which I have placed on the Paper. The Local Government Board, in their reply, said that as regards freehold land the term of repayment was to be eighty years, and that as regards loans for the payment of tenant right valuation it was also to be eighty years. They then proceeded—
"The Board are unable to say what periods would be allowed for the repayment of loans in respect to the value of existing buildings on the land to be purchased, or the alteration of such buildings or the erection of new buildings, in the absence of full information as to the age and condition of the buildings, the nature of the works to be carried out, and the buildings to be erected."
They further stated, with regard to the question of leasehold land and buildings on leasehold land—
"It would not accord with the Board's usual practice to allow for the repayment of loans for
428
works on leasehold land a longer period than the unexpired term of the lease."
I should like to ask if this is a final answer, for, if it is, it will not make the Small Holdings Act very easy to carry out.
I will first deal with the statement of the Local Government Board, with regard to buildings on freehold land, that they will require full information in regard to every one of those buildings. The local authorities cannot fix the rent until they know what the period for the repayment of these loans is to be, and now, on the top of that, they have to submit, I take it, every building, cottage, and pigsty to the Local Government Board for that authority to say for what period they will lend money on those particular buildings. If every local authority has to do that the applicants for small holdings will be dead before the small holdings are equipped Then I come to the statement of the Local Government Board that the term for the repayment in respect of leasehold land is to be the same as the term of the lease. In that case these small holders will have to pay such a rent as will recoup to the county councils, not only the interest on the money expended on the lease, but also the interest on the buildings within the term of thirty-five years. The result will be that the rent will be too high, and the leasehold part of the Act will become practically a dead latter. Therefore county councils will be driven from leasing to purchase.
A great many of these applicants for small holdings are applying for land close to towns. That land generally has a prospective building value, and therefore it would be much more economical if the county councils could lease it than if they are, as they will be under this regulation of the Local Government Board, forced to purchase; and, if they are forced to purchase, Clause 33 of the Act becomes nugatory. There is one other point upon which I should like some information. The Local Government Board, in the letter which I have quoted, say that for tenant right valuation the term for repayment is to be eighty years, which seems to be a very liberal term. Why is it so liberal? For how long will these county councils be

429
out of pocket in respect of this matter? Merely for the period between the departure of the outgoing farmer and the arrival of the incoming farmer. That will be a period of six months or a year, and it seems most unnecessary that that loan should be extended over a period of eighty years, unless, of course, His Majesty's Government mean something quite different. What I would ask the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board to tell me is this: Do they intend by that regulation that small holders are not to pay valuation upon their small holdings when they come in? That will make a very considerable difference to the security of the rates out of which failures have to be recouped.
I hope the noble Earl will be able to give a straightforward answer—I beg his pardon, I mean a direct answer—because it is very hard that local authorities should not know which way to turn in this matter. Since this letter arrived the local authority concerned has had a visit from one of His Majesty's Commissioners, to whom the letter was shown. He had never seen it, and he gave us a good deal of advice, but asked us to treat that advice as private. Therefore I am not authorised to quote it in your Lordships' House, but what fell from His Majesty's Commissioner differed altogether from the letter of the Local Government Board which I have quoted.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it has been suggested that the noble Lord who will reply on behalf of the Local Government Board should answer at the same time the Question standing in my name on the Paper. I therefore beg to ask why the loans granted to the county council of Norfolk for the purchase of lands for small holdings are based, as regards the land, on a redemption of the loans in eighty years, but, as to the buildings on the lands, on a basis of redemption in fifteen years; also, if he is aware that this is entirely at variance with the schemes as sanctioned by the Board of Agriculture for the purchase of these lands, and that consequently on one estate purchased by the county of Norfolk the rent will
430
have to be increased by 10s. an acre, which is more than the tenants can be expected to pay, and that therefore the loss must be made up by the Imperial Exchequer and ratepayers.
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Monk-Bretton, stated that the Norfolk County Council had rushed into this matter and was now regretting its precipitancy. On 5th August we received a communication from Whitehall stating that, as a general rule, county councils would be able to acquire land much more easily if they were willing to purchase, and the Board hoped that county councils would not restrict their powers in any way by confining themselves to hiring. When we received that letter we endeavoured to carry out the ideas of the Board of Agriculture. It is, of course, much more satisfactory to buy land than to hire. No county council would ever dream of building, except in a small way, on hired land. Our grievance is this, that, having carried out the suggestions of the Board of Agriculture and had schemes passed on the basis of redemption in eight years, we were then told, on applying for the loan, that we could not have it on those terms. On one estate purchased by the county of Norfolk at a cost of £3,560, and which we calculated we could let at 50s. an acre, the effect of basing the loan in respect of buildings on redemption in fifteen years is that the rent should be increased by 10s. an acre, but of course it is quite impossible to ask for that amount. The buildings, with proper management, will last 50 or 100 years, and to require the loan to be repaid in fifteen years make sit absolutely impossible to administer the Act. Like all the other Acts passed for small holdings, this Act becomes a farce and a burlesque. We purchased another piece of land for £2,500, and unless the period of redemption is eighty years, or, at any rate, a very much longer period than fifteen years, for the buildings, we shall not be able to make it pay. Yet I would take the land off the county for £2,800—a profit of £300 on their bargain—and let out to tenant farmers and make a good profit. There is no difficulty with regard to tenant right. We pay for the tenant right at valuation on everything we take over and sell to the incoming tenant, and if the incoming

431
tenant does not want to purchase we sell it to somebody else. The Act of Parliament says we are to have schemes from the Board of Agriculture. We have carried out their schemes according to their own figures, and now we find ourselves in the unpleasant position I have described. It is a case of my Lord Carrington proposes and the Grand Seignior Burns disposes.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the buildings referred to by the noble Earl are of timber and corrugated iron, or substantially built of brick with tiled roofs. An inspector from the Board of Agriculture visited my small holdings in Staffordshire, and expressed the hope that the Board would allow county councils to erect a cheaper form of buildings. Of course, if the buildings are cheap—that is to say, of timber and corrugated iron—eighty years would be too long a period over which to spread the repayment; but, on the other hand, if the buildings are substantially built, then I think they would, with care, last eighty years, and I daresay the county authorities would see that they were kept up.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We bought the whole farm with all the buildings. They are nothing more nor less than ordinary brick-built farm buildings, and I undertake to say they will last quite sixty or seventy years.
*LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I will, with the permission of your Lordships, answer together the two Questions that have been put to me. The Question standing in the name of Lord Kimberley is, as your Lordships will see, addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture, but as the loans have to be sanctioned by the Local Government Board it may be convenient that I should reply to that Question also.
I will first answer the Question put by Lord Monk-Bretton. As your Lordships no doubt are aware, money can only be borrowed for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, with the sanction of the Local Government Board. The maximum periods of repayment of loans for these purposes are fixed by statute and are as follow: Where
432
money is borrowed for the purchase of land, eighty years, and for any other purpose, fifty years. The consent of the Local Government Board is necessary to the period of repayment in each case, but the period is, of course, subject to the statutory limits. The periods to which the Board are prepared to consent are: Loans for the purchase of freehold land, eighty years; for buildings, fifty years—although the usual period is for thirty years the Local Government Board are prepared to consent to loans for fifty years if the probable life of the building is not less than this; for other buildings or equipment, a less term proportionate to the probable life of the particular work. If land is held on lease with less than fifty years unexpired the period would not exceed the period of the lease, unless at the expiration of the lease compensation will be payable to the local authority in respect of the buildings, and the compensation will be applied in paying off the debt; in which case the period for the loan might be longer than the unexpired period of the lease. Compensation as a general rule would be so payable. Any payment for the tenant right which a small holder could not reasonably be expected to repay to the council would be treated as part of the purchase money. Of course, the circumstances of each case will have to be taken into account. The noble Lord suggested that if the details respecting every pigsty, and so on, had to be gone into, it would be a very lengthy process. Of course the Local Government Board will have to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the buildings, but I do not think it need take a very long time. They will consult the Board of Agriculture, who, of course, will have reports from their experts. I do not think there need be anything like the delay suggested by the noble Lord.
In reply to the Question put by Lord Kimberley, I have to say that one of these loans in the county of Norfolk was for fifteen years for buildings, some of which were old and dilapidated. Since, however, the sanction was given, the question of the periods to be allowed for loans under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act has been further considered, and it is intended in future to fix the periods in accordance with the

433
intimation I have just given in the Answer to Lord Monk-Bretton. The county council have asked the Board to reconsider the period of fifteen years referred to by Lord Kimberley, and this request will now be dealt with on the lines already indicated in that reply.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope the House will be satisfied with the very clear statement which has been made by my noble friend. The periods are to be eighty years for land and fifty years for buildings. We are obliged to the two noble Lords for having brought the question forward. We can quite understand the anxiety of my noble friend behind me, Lord Kimberley, who has done such good work in the county to which he belongs in the cause of small holdings. But it should be remembered that the Act is in its infancy, and the Local Government Board have had to make a new departure. I may say that I am perfectly satisfied with the terms announced by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I think there is very little doubt, now that the matter is finally settled, that the Act will be able to work smoothly and quickly.

OLD-AGE PENSIONS—TREASURY REGULATIONS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to move, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will annul Regulation No. 25 which has been laid before Parliament in pursuance of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908." I propose to ask your Lordships to agree to this Motion for two reasons. The first is that already the Treasury and the Local Government Board seek to impose on county councils a charge which, so far as I can ascertain, they have no legal authority to impose, and which the county council has no legal power to comply with. My second reason is that the Treasury proceeds to direct that this shall be charged upon the general county fund, "any statute to the contrary notwithstanding." To me it appears that that is an attempt, on the part of a Department, to dispense with statutes—
434
a power which, so far as I know, has never been exercised even by Parliament itself, and which I believe has never hitherto been claimed by any Department.
If this were my own opinion only, I should attach comparatively little importance to it, because the question is to a considerable extent a legal one; but I have consulted several eminent persons learned in the law, and they all take the view which I have mentioned to your Lordships. I have the authority of Lord Halsbury, who unfortunately has been ordered by his doctor not to leave his house to-day, to say that in his opinion the action of these two Boards in this matter is both illegal and unconstitutional.
In order to explain my Motion I think it will be better that I should remind your Lordships first of all what are the powers and duties of county councils under the Old-Age Pensions Act; secondly, what are the powers given to the Treasury by the Act in regard to finance; and, thirdly, that I should point out what the Treasury and the Local Government Board have actually done in this Regulation. Under Section 8, subsection (1), of the Act, county councils and borough councils are directed to appoint pension committees. When they have done that they have discharged their whole duties. They are not mentioned again in the Act, and, as soon as they have made these appointments they are, so far as I read the Act, functus officio. Further than this, your Lordships will remember that the Pensions Act throughout the whole period of its passage, both through the other House and this House, was treated as being entirely a national Act, a matter for the taxpayers and in no sense as connected with local government or with local rates; and your Lordships will find stated in two or three places in the Act that the whole of the money is to be found by Parliament.
Let me make another observation with regard to county councils and their power of complying with the demand to make an advance under this Act. So far as I have been able to ascertain, county councils are bound strictly by the Local Government Acts,

435
and in levying the rates and appropriating them they are bound by the statutes; their accounts are liable to audit, and, if they make any illegal charges, my belief is that they would be liable to surcharge by the auditor. Let us turn now to the Treasury and the Local Government Board. What powers are given to them as to the finance in the Act? The first subsection of Clause 10 of the Act provides that—
"The Treasury in conjunction with the Local Government Board and with the Postmaster-General (so far as relates to the Post Office) may make regulations for carrying this Act into effect, and in particular"—
And the last of the three following paragraphs reads—
"(c) As to the number, quorum, term of office and proceedings generally of the local pension committee and the use by the committee, with or without payment, of any offices of a local authority, and the provision to be made for the immediate payment of any expenses of the committee which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury."
Those words, as I read them, mean any provision which can be made legally, that is, without departing from statutes to the contrary. If Parliament had intended to say that they might make any provisions they chose Parliament would have said so, and would have stated that they might make provision "notwithstanding any statutes." But Parliament did nothing of the kind, and one can only read the words as they stand in the statute.
Now what has the Treasury done? I refer your Lordships to Regulation No. 25—
"25.—(1) For the purpose of providing for the immediate payment of any expenses properly incurred by any committee (including any expenses properly incurred by any sub-committees appointed by the committee) the council by whom the committee was appointed shall from time to time advance such sums as may be necessary to provide for the payment of those expenses."
Under what part of the statute is power given to impose a charge on the county council? Not only that, but supposing this charge is made, what power has the county council to comply? They are bound by the various Local Government Acts. This Old-Age Pensions Act was never contemplated in the Local Governments Acts, and Parliament has distinctly stated that it is not an Act connected
436
in any way with local government. Then I ask, what power have they to order the advance to be made? I think the Treasury entertained some doubt as to whether their action was legal, because if your Lordships will read on, you will find this provision—
"Any sum so advanced by the council shall, notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, be provided out of the county fund."
Do not those words show that the Treasury were aware that they were acting contrary to statute? Again, what power had the Treasury to say that this was to be a charge on the county fund?
The words "notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary," appear to me, as they appear to my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury, to be unconstitutional. Here is a Department arrogating to itself a right to dispense with the statutes. Such a right has never been exercised by Parliament itself. When Parliament wishes to alter a statute it alters it, but it does not begin by disobeying it. I lay stress upon this because it is the general tenor of the legislation now coming before this House. I appeal to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees whether an attempt is not being continually made by Departments to arrogate to themselves the powers of Parliament. I cannot believe that His Majesty's Government will support this, because, if I may be permitted so far to transgress the order of debate, I would refer to an incident that occurred in the House of Commons only two days ago. The Town Planning Bill was under consideration, and there was in that Bill a clause very similar to this, but with this important difference, that the Local Government Board was asking the consent of Parliament to do away with statutes; it was not doing away with them without asking permission. But when the matter came before the Committee they decided that no Department could be allowed to interfere with public statutes, and the Government accepted an Amendment on the point. Therefore it seems to me that the Government can hardly defend what has been done in this case.
Turning to another aspect of the question, it may be argued that there was no

437
other way of carrying out the Act except by imposing this charge. If your Lordships will read subsection (3) of Regulation No. 25 you will see that the Treasury provide a way themselves. The subsection runs—
"The Treasury may, for the purpose of providing for the payment by any such council of any such expenses, if they think fit so to do, advance to the council such sums as the Treasury think proper for the purpose, and the council shall apply the sums so advanced accordingly."
Therefore it was within the power of the Treasury to do this in all cases, and there was no necessity, as far as I can see, for them to go to the county council. What is there in the Act which in any way suggests the county council rather than any other body, private or public—let us say, for instance, the Licensed Victuallers' Association—as the body on whom the charge is to be made?
Just let us suppose a case. Suppose that the Regulation stands and that some county councils, as very probably they will, decline to comply with it, and say that it is not their duty to find funds and that they have no legal power to do so. What will happen then? Will the Treasury apply for a mandamus? I put that point to Lord Halsbury to-day, and he informed me that in such a case he believed the Judges would be compelled to find that there was no legal authority in the Treasury to direct the making of this charge, or in the county council to impose such a charge. What is the cause of this regulation, because obviously it has not been very fully considered? The cause really is hurry. The Bill came up to this House on 20th July and we had finished it, very much against our will, by 30th July. Many noble Lords desired the consideration of the Bill to be postponed until the present time, and the only reason we did not insist upon that was that the Government informed us they would not be able to bring the Act into operation by 1st January if postponement were insisted upon. What is the consequence? These Regulations were drawn up in tremendous haste. Parliament adjourned on 1st August. Looking at the Regulations casually you might suppose that they were issued on 15th October, the date which appears on the
438
front page, but at the bottom of page 16 there is a line to this effect—
"These regulations shall be deemed to have had effect as from the 20th day of August, 1908."
So these Regulations appear to have been drawn up in three weeks. They are signed by two Lords of the Treasury, by the President of the Local Government Board, and also on behalf of the Local Government Board for Ireland, but I do not believe that any one of those Ministers signed them in any other way than ministerially.
How is it possible that a set of Regulations affecting an intricate Act of this sort could be properly drawn up in three weeks and examined by the various Ministers who signed them? I am quite sure that all the permanent officials at the present time are very much overworked. I may say further that there are, in my opinion, other irregularities in these Regulations and Instructions to which I may call your Lordships' attention on some future occasion. For the present, however, I will limit myself to Regulation No. 25, which appears to me to be the chief offender. If Regulation No. 25 stands and Parliament permits it to have the force of law, then a most mischievous precedent will have been created, because you will have passed a Regulation under which two Departments acted in defiance of statutes and placed themselves above the law.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will annul Regulation No. 25 which has been laid before Parliament in pursuance of the Act."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
*LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, nobody can be astonished when any question bearing upon county finance, however indirectly, claims the attention of your Lordships' House, because we are all aware that there is at the present time, not at all unnaturally, great anxiety in regard to local finance generally and the constant growth of our rates. Therefore, every proposal, however small, which directly or indirectly throws, or appears to throw, an increased

439
burden upon the ratepayers, is scanned with extreme jealousy in this House and in the House of Commons.
The noble Earl has dealt with the legal aspect of the matter as well as the financial aspect, and, in regard to the former, he has had the advantage, of which he has availed himself very fully, of delivering to the House a message from a high legal authority whose absence from his place this evening, and still more the reason, we all deeply regret. But I cannot help thinking that messages of this kind, even when coming from a high and much-respected source, are in many ways inconvenient, but chiefly because they place the House at a disadvantage. They partake of the nature of hearsay evidence, if I may take what may seem, perhaps, a technical objection, and are subject undoubtedly to the disadvantages which attach to all statements made upon the authority of a person who is not present and cannot be called upon to reply himself.
In regard to the legal aspect, though, of course, your Lordships cannot possibly attach that importance to any opinion of mine which attaches to the opinion of the noble and learned Earl, I think I shall be able to show without very great difficulty that my noble friend has, to say the least, very greatly overstated his case. A reference to Clause 10 of the Pensions Act will show that the Treasury have power to make Regulations, which shall have the force of law, and, amongst other things, provision can be made for the immediate payment of any expenses of the pensions committee which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury. That is absolutely free from any possibility of contradiction. It appears on the face of those words that Parliament evidently contemplated payments being made in the first instance by one set of persons and the repayment by another. That is absolutely clear.
Therefore, what we have to consider is, is there anything in the Act which prohibits the Treasury from selecting and calling upon the county council, or the borough or urban district council, as the case may be, to make the advance in the first place? That point my noble friend Lord Camperdown did not attempt
440
to deal with seriously. He seems to think that, because there is no express direction in the Act to the local authority to pay, this Regulation is ultra vires. I put the exact converse to your Lordships. There are no words of limitation in the Act, and therefore, the Treasury had full power to select the authority to make the payment in the first place. That brings me to my second contention, which is that it would have been exceedingly inconvenient if the Treasury had selected any body other than the local authority to make the advance. The whole Act is based upon the co-operation of the Treasury and these local authorities.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, no.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I should have thought that was a matter not in dispute.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Will the noble Lord quote the clauses?
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I refer to the whole Act. I say it is based upon the harmonious working of these local authorities and their committees with the Treasury. The Act of Parliament itself certainly indicates the local authority as being the body to which the Treasury would look to make the advances.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Where is that in the Act?
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I understand that the noble Earl desires that there should be at once a system of advances to be made by the Treasury. That is contemplated. When a county council thinks that an inconvenience to them is likely to result from being called upon to advance money, they have power to apply to the Treasury for an advance. So far the time has been short, and no county council has made any such application, but in the course of the year I think it is exceedingly likely that the Treasury will receive applications. But there can be no doubt at all that, looked at from the taxpayers' point of view, it is convenient that at the start the arrangements should be made by te county councils. They are on the spot,

441
and are conversant with the actual necessities of the case. They will be able to judge easily, rapidly, and correctly what money is necessary, and then they can send in their claims to the Treasury. There will be no delay, I am informed, in dealing with these claims. They will be comparatively simple, and I believe that in all probability it will be found that very seldom will a period longer than three or four months at the most elapse between the time when the claim is received and when it is actually paid by the Treasury.
The noble Earl appears before your Lordships to-night as the vindicator of the Constitution, which is in danger through the wiles of a wicked Liberal Government, and he has called your Lordships' especial attention to the words in the regulation that this is—
"To take effect notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary."
Those words are really not of the immense importance which the noble Lord thinks. These Regulations are made under an Act of Parliament and they have the force of law, although no doubt the Local Government Act, 1888, expressly forbids any advance or payment out of local funds, except for certain definite purposes therein specified. The legal point on which I entirely rely is that, taking the clause upon which my noble friend and I have dwelt, there is full power to issue a Regulation of this kind calling for an advance from the local authority, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1888, and the words which my noble friend has quoted are simply inserted "ex abundanti cantata."
This is not a terrific inroad, modelled upon the conduct of King James II., to destroy the sacred principles of the British Constitution, as my noble friend seems to imagine. I really do not like to use the expression because of the high legal authority he quoted, but really, if it had not been for that high authority, I should be inclined to say that this great legal discovery partook of the nature of a mare's nest; but I have no doubt that, if your Lordships desire it, we shall have the advantage of hearing legal opinions to which the
442
House will attach an importance which I know I cannot claim for my own.
Having dealt with the legal argument, the point I wish to put before the House is this, Is this a matter of such tremendous financial importance? There is to be an advance of the actually necessary sums for administrative purposes by these local authorities, and, as I have informed the House, there is to be a rapid system of repayment. These payments will be made out of the county fund. Those who are familiar with county council finance know that the different branches of expenditure are all out of the county fund which is one drawing account and which is broken up into different accounts at the end of the financial year for the purposes of audit. The whole of the expenditure is one drawing account. Even if the expenditure were considerable it is highly improbable that it would cause any over-draft on the county fund as a whole, especially as the repayments will come in exceedingly quickly. The whole thing is, in fact, a banking transaction. Therefore my noble friend, who thinks he has made a great discovery, has really made no discovery at all; the legal point is one which does not exist, and the financial one is so small that you require a microscope to detect it.
*LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am not quite sure that there is a legal point in this discussion. It seems to me that, if there is, it far transcends accurate description by that phrase and rises in several aspects into the higher region of the Constitution. You have at stake, in this apparently technical matter, some of the most important and vital interests of the Constitution. You are proposing first, by these Regulations, to give to the Executive the right of deciding whether rates or taxes are in the first instance to bear a particular burden. You are doing more. These powers conferred by Parliament upon an executive body are familiar in the administration of the law, but they will always be found strictly confined to the region of administration. Till now it has never been suggested that Parliament proposed

443
to devolve upon the Executive the right of arranging for the convenience of the Treasury, not merely what fund shall be drawn upon, but whether the rates of each particular locality shall be drawn upon, for what they have avowed at the beginning is a purely Imperial purpose.
I own that I envy the graceful jocularity of the noble Lord who has just sat down, because I cannot help thinking that if this subject is explained to the constituencies some very ugly and awkward questions will arise. I do not refer to this particular subject of old-age pensions which has been so much vaunted as showing the vast interest that is taken in the poor. I refer to this, that if you allow these Regulations to stand you will authorise the doctrine that Parliament may devolve upon the Executive, because it is too lazy or has not the time to consider the question, some of the most important questions that can affect legislation. Why are those words—
"Any statute to the contrary notwithstanding"
put in? I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if he takes part in the debate, to say what are those statutory enactments? The truth of the matter was admirably expressed by Lord Fitzmaurice when he explained that county councils and borough councils were purely statutory bodies, and had their hands tied by the Legislature. The statute which constitutes those bodies not merely directs them to apply their rates to certain specified purposes, but it forbids them to apply them to any other. But I ask further, where, affirmatively, are powers given to levy rates for this object? The Treasury comes gaily along and says: "Oh, never mind that; we call upon you to find so much money, and we tall you to levy rates for the purpose." That is so, because the purse must be filled; and unless it can be shown that the Treasury is possessed of the power of legalising expenditure and rating by county councils for anything it pleases, then I think this must stand condemned.
I cannot say that I ever saw administrative rules or regulations which bore on their face that they were gainsaying the Acts of the Legislature. The matter is not confined to that, because in criticising regulations of this kind you require
444
to find chapter and verse for the Act of devolution by the Legislature on the executive. The only words the noble Lord has appealed to are as to the provision to be made for the immediate payment of any expenses of the pensions committee, which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury. I ask anyone who reads that provision whether he can seriously say that it was contemplated that the Treasury should look round, and as the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy has expressed it, select a suitable victim and call upon the county councils to make the advance. The easy confidence of the noble Lord in his own case was evidenced by his taking my noble friend Lord Camperdown into consultation on the subject by saying: "What would you suggest? What other body would you suggest?" I venture to think that if in either House of Parliament the proposal had been mooted as we now have it in black and white in these Rules, there would have been a great damping of enthusiasm in various quarters which have been more or less enthusiastic for this measure.
I protest altogether against discussing, as Lord Fitzmaurice did, questions of expediency. "What do you think could be better?" asks my noble friend. "Is it not very convenient?" All that is not for this stage of the proceedings at all. It ought to have been thought out at the outset where the money was to be got at first, and where it was ultimately to come from. This plan reverses the normal operation of legislation. It says that in the long run the Treasury will pay. I suppose the Treasury will look round for a victim—some roost—and requisition the money. I protest on these grounds against this being allowed to pass muster. I will not detain your Lordships longer at this late hour, but my brief observations must not be taken as adequate expression of my sense of the gravity of this occasion. I cannot help thinking, if this were held to be a precedent—and it must be once it has been done—that a Government with a large majority would say: "It does not very much matter what we put in the Bill; we will get our obedient Departments to work it out and choose the purse." I hope the House will rise to

445
the occasion and will peremptorily correct so manifest a deviation from sound Constitutional practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, whether your Lordships approved—some of you, no doubt, did approve—or did not approve in spirit of the old-age pension scheme, I believe the general feeling of the House will be to give that scheme a fair chance, and not unnecessarily upon capricious grounds—I am not suggesting that the noble Earl was capricious—or upon inadequate grounds to try and disturb the machinery by which it is to be carried into effect. That is the first observation I offer to your Lordships. The second is that you should appreciate the real magnitude of the point now under discussion. The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken treated it as one of supreme importance, as if we were rising to the high summits of constitutional law.
The practical point is that provision has to be made by the Treasury for the immediate payment of the expenses of the committees, which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury. The only question is, Who is to make the temporary advance? That is the only point. I cannot see myself that it involves any deep drafts upon the rates. It simply is a question what provision is to be made for a temporary advance which is to be repaid by the Treasury, and the Treasury has power to make an advance at once to the bodies which are to find the money. That is the whole magnitude of the point. As to the legal question, I confess to feeling some embarassment, because the noble and learned Earl, the late Lord Chancellor, for whose opinion I have the most unfeigned respect, has sent a message to your Lordships that this is all illegal and unconstitutional. Although I have always received the greatest courtesy at the hands of your Lordships, I do not profess to expect that my opinion will be taken as being equal to that of my predecessor, with his record of long service. I detest the idea of differing from a brother Judge in Parliament upon a question of law if it can possibly be avoided. I will, however, tell your Lordships frankly that when I was asked my opinion on this subject I thought
446
that what was done was within the Act. But I will not say that had I a consultation with Lord Halsbury it is not possible that I should alter my mind, nor will I say that if the noble and learned Earl had a consultation with me it is not possible that he would alter his. My view is that these legal questions ought to be settled by courts of law. Here is the opportunity. If a county council thinks itself aggrieved and that the Treasury were wrongly advised, let it go to a court of law and have the point decided there. That seems to me to be the better and more convenient course from a legal point of view.
I am not, of course, referring to the constitutional question or the question of policy. As to that question, it seems to me that the matter is a very small one—the advancing for a short time of something that has to be repaid. It would be a serious matter if it were laid down that, whenever power is given by Act of Parliament to make rules, those rules are unconstitutional if they come into conflict with any section of a preceding Act of Parliament. We have a perfect labyrinth of statutes on every sort of subject, and if, on making a new departure like this and giving an authority an unbounded discretion, any rule which conflicted with some preceding Act of Parliament were declared unconstitutional, Parliament would be very likely to thwart its own purpose. It is under an Act of Parliament that these rules and regulations are made. If Parliament does not think proper to give power to make the Regulations, it can withhold it; and if it wishes to limit that power, it can limit it. I say, with the greatest respect, that I should like to see the question of the legality of this proceeding tried by a court of law. The courts of law are open. If it is wrong, it can be stopped by law. My own opinion is otherwise; but I do think the courts of law are the proper tribunal.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to make one observation, and I do so as emphatically as I can. I wish to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that, although many of us regarded the passing of the Old-Age Pensions Act

447
with grave misgivings—misgivings which have not been entirely removed—nothing is further from our thoughts than to obstruct the application of that Act, or to increase the difficulties, and they will be very formidable difficulties, of those who will be called upon to administer it. We desire, as the noble and learned Lord does, that the Act should have a fair trial. But when your Lordships' House insisted that the Regulations made under the Act should be laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, we took what was no mere idle or formal precaution; and I conceive it is the duty of this House to examine those Regulations and to consider very carefully indeed whether they should be allowed to remain unchallenged.
We have been told on the part of His Majesty's Government that, so far as what I think has been called the practical grievance or the financial grievance occasioned by these Regulations is concerned, that grievance is not a very substantial one. I admit that there is some force in that argument. I do not believe that any one stands to be very heavily mulcted by the operation of these Regulations. But when I am told that the matter is such a very small one I am reminded of an episode in one of Marryat's novels which was a great joy to us in our boyhood. The passage was connected with the somewhat irregular arrival of a little infant, and the mother pleaded, in extenuation, that it was a very little one.
Now I fully understand what is desired by His Majesty's Government under these Regulations. These pension committees are to be called into existence, and it is quite evident that they must be put in funds by one means or another. That is a very obvious view, and the Act, as we have been told this evening, clearly contemplates that means should be discovered of putting them in funds so far as their immediate necessities are concerned, and upon the understanding that the money is to be ultimately refunded by the Treasury. So far all is plain and easy. But then we come to the procedure adopted by His Majesty's Government in order
448
to give effect to this purpose, and we are met by the challenge, "If you think our procedure bad, can you suggest a better one?" I rather object to that argument. I do not conceive that it is our business to explain to the public how these matters can be most conveniently arranged. But I shall have a word of suggestion even upon that point.
We take, however, two objections to the Regulations as they stand. In the first place, under those Regulations the Treasury, acting with the Local Government Board, takes it upon itself to issue orders to, and to interfere with, the county councils in a manner which appears to me to go very far beyond the spirit of the Local Government Act of 1888, from which these councils derive their powers. We have been told that the Old-Age Pensions Act is based upon the co-operation of the Treasury with the local authorities. I am not quite sure that the terms of the Act quite bear out that statement. I have looked through it and I find in it only one reference to the county councils. The county councils are required to call these pension committees into existence. Having done that, the county councils step into the background, and it is the aid of the Treasury and public funds that are invoked.
Then the second objection is that which has been taken upon constitutional grounds, and there I am bound say it does seem to me that the point, even though it be in itself a small one, does raise a Constitutional question of the very highest importance; a question, moreover, which, as has been truly said this evening, is every day more frequently and more urgently brought under our attention—I mean the question of the extent to which you can give a public Department the right of overriding the law as it is found in the Statute-book. I rather understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to suggest that the words to which we have called attention—I mean the words which declare that the funds are to be provided out of the county fund notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary—were put in as a somewhat formal and not very important precaution. I regard them rather more seriously, and I venture

449
humbly to suggest to your Lordships that those words were surplusage unless it was intended by means of them to give this Department the power of going beyond the scope of the Acts of Parliament which regulated their proceedings.
We on this side of the House remain of opinion that those words do involve a grave irregularity which it is the duty of the House to take notice of. We feel, moreover, that we are by no means paralysing the operation of the Act when we desire that these pension committees should be financed from some source other than the county fund; because the Regulation itself is the two paragraphs which immediately follow, provides a means of financing them without the intervention of the county fund. A very trifling alteration would enable these pension committees to be supplied with the funds necessary for the performance of their duties, and there should be no difficulty in arranging that those funds should be provided without any straining of the law. For these reasons, if my noble friend goes to a division I shall certainly support him.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not mean at this late hour to follow any of the very interesting arguments we have heard with regard to the legal or constitutional question; but I do not think it would be right that I should remain altogether silent inasmuch as this matter has been discussed at considerable length by both the Parliamentary Committee and the executive council of the County Councils Association. The executive council only yesterday passed a resolution which declared that the regulations appear to exceed the powers given to the Treasury by the Act, to cast on the finances of county councils expenses which the Act did not cast on them, and to impose duties on their servants which the Act in no way authorised, and recommended that the executive council should support any action that might be taken to bring the matter before Parliament. This resolution was not brought forward in any spirit of hostility to the Old-Age Pensions Act. Indeed, it was mentioned in the discussion that the
450
association had no wish to throw any difficulty in the way of the administration of the Act. So strongly did the executive council feel about this matter that they purposely left out any allusion to other parts of the regulations on which some criticisms had been made, and passed unanimously the Resolution to which I have referred. There is, under these Regulations, to be thrown on the county councils what they believe to be an illegal charge, and it is for that reason that the county councils are of opinion that the Regulations ought to be protested against by all the means in their power. It has been said that this is a small point. It may be a small point if we are to take all the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy. But let me point out that these Regulations not only throw this charge upon county councils, but provide—and I think this is adding insult to injury—that the money shall be repaid to the councils at such times and in such manner as the Treasury think fit. Moreover, no interest is to be paid for the money so advanced.
LORD FITZMAURICE: I was able to give an assurance that these advances would be repaid within a short while. It would always be well within the financial year.
LORD BELPER: I fully accept the noble Lord's assurances. I have no doubt the noble Lord will do all he can to get his assurances carried out, but they have not the effect which these Regulations will have after they are approved by Parliament. I cannot myself see what power the county councils have to raise a rate for this purpose. So far from their being mentioned in the Bill in harmonious conjunction with the Treasury, there is only one clause which refers in any way whatever to them, and that is the clause under which they have to appoint the pensions committees, after which their powers absolutely cease. I can assure the House that the county councils feel very strongly about the matter.
On Question,

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Morley, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Northumberland, D.

Northbrook, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Onslow, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Faber, L.

Bath, M.

Hindlip, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Salisbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Goschen, V.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Hood, V.

Leigh, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore).

Macnaughten, L.

Cawdor, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cromer, E.

Robertson, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Sanderson, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Harrowby, E.

Belper, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Lauderdale, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Londesborough, E.

Clinton, L.

Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Glantawe, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Herschell, L.

Lochee, L.

Allendale, L.

Lucas, L.

Armistead, L.

Marchamley, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyth, L.

O'Hagen, L.

Burghclere, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Chichester, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Craven, E.

Eversley, L.

The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter past Four o'clock.